Literature DB >> 27000911

Does hospital setting post robotic fellowship training affect outcomes? A multi-institutional comparison of initial outcomes between academic and community settings.

Maher Sraj1, William T Berg1, Chad Gridley2, Michael Fumo2, Ketan K Badani3.   

Abstract

The effect of practice setting on skill development post robotic fellowship training is currently unknown. We sought to compare learning curves between a high-volume academic center and a similar volume community hospital, in the setting of building a new robotic prostatectomy program. In addition, we sought to characterize benchmarks for learning curve development for post-fellowship training in robotic surgery. At two institutions, one academic (AC) and the other in the community (CO), the first 150 patients who underwent robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy over a period of 1 year were evaluated. We compared the following outcomes, operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, by two surgeons. Both surgeons completed the same surgical robotic fellowship in the same year. Cases were divided by tertile and primary outcomes measures were compared. Demographic data were similar between the two groups. Statistical differences were seen in age, preoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men score, clinical and pathologic stage, and bladder neck reconstruction rate (p < 0.05). Overall, there was no significant difference in OT between AC (174 min) and CO (181 min) (p = 0.1099). Both EBL and PSM were lower in the AC (155 vs. 197 ml, p < 0.001 and 10 vs. 26 %, p < 0.05). The difference in OT was significant only in the first tertile of cases (AC 168 min vs. CO 193 min, p = 0.002). However, OT increased by 13 min in AC and decreased by 22 min in CO, when comparing the first and last tertile. EBL was different between AC (161ml) and CO (212 ml) only in the first tertile of cases (p = 0.002). Both AC and CO had increased EBL over the last tertile of cases (16.2 vs. 26.5 ml, respectively). These results demonstrate minor differences in outcomes between the two practice settings. Fellowship training in robotic surgery demonstrates a shorter learning curve towards achieving proficiency. Larger and longer term series will be required to assess functional outcomes and time to proficiency.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Learning curve; Prostate cancer; Robotic radical prostatectomy

Year:  2012        PMID: 27000911     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-012-0366-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  23 in total

1.  The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. 1905.

Authors:  Hugh H Young
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series.

Authors:  C G Eden; D Cahill; J A Vass; T H Adams; M I Dauleh
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 3.  Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases.

Authors:  Mani Menon; Ashutosh Tewari; James O Peabody; Alok Shrivastava; Sanjeev Kaul; Akshay Bhandari; Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.241

4.  Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery.

Authors:  Hua-yin Yu; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Keith J Kowalczyk; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Stefano Cavalleri; Giacomo Novara; Maurizio Aragona; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Impact of fellowship training on pathologic outcomes and complication rates of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Charles J Rosser; Ashish M Kamat; John Pendleton; Tracy L Robinson; Louis L Pisters; David A Swanson; Richard J Babaian
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Anthony V D'Amico; Ming-Hui Chen; Kimberly A Roehl; William J Catalona
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-08       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an assessment of its contemporary role in the surgical management of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Joseph A Smith
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations.

Authors:  P C Walsh; H Lepor; J C Eggleston
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 4.104

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.