Andrew Chen1, Saum Ghodoussipour1, Micha B Titus1, Jessica H Nguyen1, Jian Chen1, Runzhuo Ma1, Andrew J Hung2. 1. Center for Robotic Simulation and Education, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California Institute of Urology, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Suite 7416, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 2. Center for Robotic Simulation and Education, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California Institute of Urology, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Suite 7416, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. Andrew.Hung@med.usc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we investigate the effect of trainee involvement on surgical performance, as measured by automated performance metrics (APMs), and outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We compared APMs (instrument tracking, EndoWrist® articulation, and system events data) and clinical outcomes for cases with varying resident involvement. Four of 12 standardized RARP steps were designated critical ("cardinal") steps. Comparison 1: cases where the attending surgeon performed all four cardinal steps (Group A) and cases where a trainee was involved in at least one cardinal step (Group B). Comparison 2, where Group A is split into Groups C and D: cases where attending performs the whole case (Group C) vs. cases where a trainee performed at least one non-cardinal step (Group D). Mann-Whitney U and Chi-squared tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Comparison 1 showed significant differences in APM profiles including camera movement time, third instrument usage, dominant instrument moving time, velocity, articulation, as well as non-dominant instrument moving time and articulation (all favoring Group A p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in re-admission rates (10.9% in Group A vs 0% in Group B, p < 0.02), but not for post-operative outcomes. Comparison 2 demonstrated a significant difference in dominant instrument articulation (p < 0.05) but not in post-operative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee involvement in RARP is safe. The degree of trainee involvement does not significantly affect major clinical outcomes. APM profiles are less efficient when trainees perform at least one cardinal step but not during non-cardinal steps.
PURPOSE: In this study, we investigate the effect of trainee involvement on surgical performance, as measured by automated performance metrics (APMs), and outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: We compared APMs (instrument tracking, EndoWrist® articulation, and system events data) and clinical outcomes for cases with varying resident involvement. Four of 12 standardized RARP steps were designated critical ("cardinal") steps. Comparison 1: cases where the attending surgeon performed all four cardinal steps (Group A) and cases where a trainee was involved in at least one cardinal step (Group B). Comparison 2, where Group A is split into Groups C and D: cases where attending performs the whole case (Group C) vs. cases where a trainee performed at least one non-cardinal step (Group D). Mann-Whitney U and Chi-squared tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Comparison 1 showed significant differences in APM profiles including camera movement time, third instrument usage, dominant instrument moving time, velocity, articulation, as well as non-dominant instrument moving time and articulation (all favoring Group A p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in re-admission rates (10.9% in Group A vs 0% in Group B, p < 0.02), but not for post-operative outcomes. Comparison 2 demonstrated a significant difference in dominant instrument articulation (p < 0.05) but not in post-operative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee involvement in RARP is safe. The degree of trainee involvement does not significantly affect major clinical outcomes. APM profiles are less efficient when trainees perform at least one cardinal step but not during non-cardinal steps.
Authors: Christopher B Allard; Christian P Meyer; Giorgio Gandaglia; Steven L Chang; Felix K H Chun; Francisco Gelpi-Hammerschmidt; Julian Hanske; Adam S Kibel; Mark A Preston; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Mehul V Raval; Xue Wang; Mark E Cohen; Angela M Ingraham; David J Bentrem; Justin B Dimick; Timothy Flynn; Bruce L Hall; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-03-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Nedim Ruhotina; Julien Dagenais; Giorgio Gandaglia; Akshay Sood; Firas Abdollah; Steven L Chang; Jeffrey J Leow; Kola Olugbade; Arun Rai; Jesse D Sammon; Marianne Schmid; Briony Varda; Kevin C Zorn; Mani Menon; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Anthony W Castleberry; Bryan M Clary; John Migaly; Mathias Worni; Jeffrey M Ferranti; Theodore N Pappas; John E Scarborough Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Richard S Matulewicz; Matthew Pilecki; Aksharananda Rambachan; John Y S Kim; Shilajit D Kundu Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Saratu Kutana; Daniel P Bitner; Poppy Addison; Paul J Chung; Mark A Talamini; Filippo Filicori Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: I-Hsuan Alan Chen; Ahmed Ghazi; Ashwin Sridhar; Danail Stoyanov; Mark Slack; John D Kelly; Justin W Collins Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 4.226