BACKGROUND: We analyzed differences in patient selection and perioperative outcomes between robotic-fellowship trained and non-fellowship trained surgeons in their initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. METHODS: Data through surgeon case 10 was analyzed. Forty patients were identified from two fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20) and two non-fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20). RESULTS: Fellowship trained surgeons performed surgery on masses of higher nephrometry score (8.0 vs. 6.0, p = 0.007) and more posterior location (60 vs. 25%, p = 0.03). Retroperitoneal approach was more common (50 vs. 0%, p = 0.0003). Fellowship trained surgeons trended toward shorter warm ischemia time (25.5 vs. 31.0 min, p = 0.08). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications (35 vs. 35%, p = 0.45) or final positive margin rates (0 vs. 15%, p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Fellowship experience may allow for treating more challenging and posterior tumors in initial practice and significantly more comfort performing retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
BACKGROUND: We analyzed differences in patient selection and perioperative outcomes between robotic-fellowship trained and non-fellowship trained surgeons in their initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. METHODS: Data through surgeon case 10 was analyzed. Forty patients were identified from two fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20) and two non-fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20). RESULTS: Fellowship trained surgeons performed surgery on masses of higher nephrometry score (8.0 vs. 6.0, p = 0.007) and more posterior location (60 vs. 25%, p = 0.03). Retroperitoneal approach was more common (50 vs. 0%, p = 0.0003). Fellowship trained surgeons trended toward shorter warm ischemia time (25.5 vs. 31.0 min, p = 0.08). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications (35 vs. 35%, p = 0.45) or final positive margin rates (0 vs. 15%, p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: Fellowship experience may allow for treating more challenging and posterior tumors in initial practice and significantly more comfort performing retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.
Authors: Timothy J Leroy; David D Thiel; David A Duchene; Alex S Parker; Todd C Igel; Michael J Wehle; Manilo Goetzl; J Brantley Thrasher Journal: J Endourol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Gregory Spana; Georges-Pascal Haber; Lori M Dulabon; Firas Petros; Craig G Rogers; Sam B Bhayani; Michael D Stifelman; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher S Ng; Inderbir S Gill; Anup P Ramani; Andrew P Steinberg; Massimiliano Spaliviero; Sidney C Abreu; Jihad H Kaouk; Mihir M Desai Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Louis R Kavoussi; Brian R Lane; Michael L Blute; Denise Babineau; J Roberto Colombo; Igor Frank; Sompol Permpongkosol; Christopher J Weight; Jihad H Kaouk; Michael W Kattan; Andrew C Novick Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brian M Benway; Sam B Bhayani; Craig G Rogers; Lori M Dulabon; Manish N Patel; Michael Lipkin; Agnes J Wang; Michael D Stifelman Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ali Khalifeh; Jihad H Kaouk; Sam Bhayani; Craig Rogers; Michael Stifelman; Youssef S Tanagho; Ramesh Kumar; Michael A Gorin; Ganesh Sivarajan; Dinesh Samarasekera; Mohamad E Allaf Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Leslie A Deane; Hak J Lee; Geoffrey N Box; Ori Melamud; David S Yee; Jose Benito A Abraham; David S Finley; James F Borin; Elspeth M McDougall; Ralph V Clayman; David K Ornstein Journal: J Endourol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Jennifer Locke; Michael Robinson; Andrew MacNeily; S Larry Goldenberg; Peter C Black Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 1.862