Literature DB >> 27342871

Can proctoring affect the learning curve of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty? Experience at a high-volume pediatric robotic surgery center.

Diana K Bowen1, Bruce W Lindgren2,3, Earl Y Cheng2,3, Edward M Gong2,3.   

Abstract

We sought to determine if the learning curve in pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) for an experienced open surgeon (OS) converting to robotics would be affected by proctoring from an experienced robotic surgeon (RS), and/or the experience of training within the framework of an established robotics program. We reviewed pediatric RALP cases by three surgeons at our institution, including the OS, RS, and a new fellowship-trained surgeon (FTS). We compared the first eight independent RALPs for the OS with the most recent ten RALPs for the RS. As an ancillary analysis, to isolate the impact of proctoring and of a robotics program, we reviewed the first ten cases of the FTS as well the first and last eight cases of the RS at a prior institution. A total of 44 patient charts were reviewed, with a mean follow-up time of 16 months (range 6.7-45 months). Radiologic improvement was seen in all patients with the exception of one who required reoperative pyeloplasty. The FTS, RS, and OS had similar mean operative times; however; when comparing robotic cases at the beginning of each of their learning curves, shorter operative times were achieved by the proctored surgeon (OS). Finally, comparing two RALP cohorts by the RS at his prior institution revealed longer operative times with an inexperienced robotics team. We demonstrate that an experienced open surgeon and fellowship-trained surgeon can quickly attain levels of expertise with pediatric RALP within an established robotic surgical program.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Learning curve; Proctoring; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Robotics

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27342871     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0613-9

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


  14 in total

1.  Evaluation of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children: single-surgeon experience.

Authors:  P Murthy; J A Cohn; M S Gundeti
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Robotic pyeloplasty--the new standard of care?

Authors:  Craig A Peters
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: a safe and highly effective treatment option.

Authors:  Bruce W Lindgren; Jennifer Hagerty; Theresa Meyer; Earl Y Cheng
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Transition from open to robotic-assisted pediatric pyeloplasty: a feasibility and outcome study.

Authors:  Sean T O'Brien; Aseem R Shukla
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 1.830

5.  Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children.

Authors:  David S Yee; Allan M Shanberg; Barry P Duel; Esequiel Rodriguez; Louis Eichel; Deepak Rajpoot
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 6.  Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hong Mei; Jiarui Pu; Chunlei Yang; Huanyu Zhang; Liduan Zheng; Qiangsong Tong
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Dennis B Liu; Chandy Ellimoottil; Andrew S Flum; Jessica T Casey; Edward M Gong
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 1.830

8.  National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Emilie K Johnson; Curtis Clark; Benjamin I Chung; Caleb P Nelson; Steven L Chang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  A comparison of open vs laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty using the pediatric health information system database--do benefits of laparoscopic approach recede at younger ages?

Authors:  Stacy T Tanaka; John A Grantham; John C Thomas; Mark C Adams; John W Brock; John C Pope
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-08-16       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes.

Authors:  Shyam Sukumar; Florian Roghmann; Akshay Sood; Al'a Abdo; Mani Menon; Jesse D Sammon; Maxine Sun; Briony Varda; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jack S Elder
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Single-Site Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology.

Authors:  Diana K Bowen; Jason P Van Batavia; Arun K Srinivasan
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants.

Authors:  William R Boysen; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  Robotic Approach to Creation of Continent Catheterisable Channels-Technical Steps, Current Status, and Review of Outcomes.

Authors:  Ramnath Subramaniam
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 3.418

Review 4.  Managing vesicoureteral reflux in children: making sense of all the data.

Authors:  Angelena Edwards; Craig A Peters
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2019-01-08
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.