Literature DB >> 31928760

Learning Curve in Robot-assisted Kidney Transplantation: Results from the European Robotic Urological Society Working Group.

Andrea Gallioli1, Angelo Territo2, Romain Boissier2, Riccardo Campi3, Graziano Vignolini3, Mireia Musquera4, Antonio Alcaraz4, Karel Decaestecker5, Volkan Tugcu6, Davide Vanacore7, Sergio Serni3, Alberto Breda2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) was recently introduced as renal replacement mini-invasive surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To report surgical technique, including tips and tricks, and the learning curve for RAKT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive RAKTs performed in the five highest-volume centers of the European Robotic Urological Society RAKT group were reviewed, and a step-by-step description of the technique was compiled. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Surgeries were performed with Da Vinci Si/Xi. The patient was placed in the lithotomy position. The Trendelenburg position was set at 20-30° and the robot was docked between the legs. MEASUREMENTS: Shewhart control charts and cumulative summation (CUSUM) graphs and trifecta were generated to assess the learning curve according to rewarming time (RWT), intra/postoperative complications, and renal graft function (glomerular filtration rate) on days 7 and 30, and at 1 yr. Linear regressions were performed to compare the learning curves of each surgeon. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Arterial anastomosis time was below the alarm/alert line in 93.3%/88.9% of RAKTs, while venous anastomosis time was below the alarm/alert line in 88.9%/73.9%. The nonanastomotic RWT exceeded +3 standard deviation (SD) in 24.7% of procedures and +2SD in 37.1%. In only 46% cases, the RWT was below the alert line. The ureteroneocystostomy time was below +2SD and +3SD in 87.9% and 90.2% of cases, respectively. CUSUM showed that the learning curve for arterial anastomosis required up to 35 (mean = 16) cases. Complications and delayed graft function rates decreased significantly and reached a plateau after the first 20 cases. Trifecta was achieved in 75% (24/32) of the cases after the first 34 RAKTs in each center.
CONCLUSIONS: A minimum of 35 cases are necessary to reach reproducibility in terms of RWT, complications, and functional results. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Robot-assisted kidney transplantation requires a learning curve of 35 cases to achieve reproducibility in terms of timing, complications, and functional results. Synergy between the surgeon and the assistant is crucial to reduce rewarming time. High-grade complications and delayed graft function are rare after ten surgeries. Hands-on training and proctorship are highly recommended.
Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kidney transplantation; Learning curve; Regional hypothermia; Robot-assisted kidney transplantation; Robotic surgery; Vascular anastomosis

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31928760     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  9 in total

1.  Cumulative Sum Analysis of the Operator Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Mayo Clinic Level I-IV Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy Associated with Renal Carcinoma: A Study of 120 Cases at a Single Center.

Authors:  Donglai Shen; Hanfeng Wang; Chenfeng Wang; Qingbo Huang; Shichao Li; Shengpan Wu; Yundong Xuan; Huijie Gong; Hongzhao Li; Xin Ma; Baojun Wang; Xu Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-02-28

2.  The University of Florence Technique for Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation: 3-Year Experience.

Authors:  Graziano Vignolini; Isabella Greco; Francesco Sessa; Luca Gemma; Alessio Pecoraro; Paolo Barzaghi; Antonio Grosso; Francesco Corti; Nicola Mormile; Marco Martiriggiano; Alessandro Berni; Niccolò Firenzuoli; Mauro Gacci; Saverio Giancane; Arcangelo Sebastianelli; Vincenzo Li Marzi; Sergio Serni; Riccardo Campi
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2020-11-11

3.  Robot-Assisted versus Conventional Open Kidney Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Guangxiang Liu; Yongming Deng; Shenjie Zhang; Tingshen Lin; Hongqian Guo
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Pediatric Challenges in Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation.

Authors:  Julien Grammens; Michal Yaela Schechter; Liesbeth Desender; Tom Claeys; Céline Sinatti; Johan VandeWalle; Frank Vermassen; Ann Raes; Caroline Vanpeteghem; Agnieszka Prytula; Mesrur Selçuk Silay; Alberto Breda; Karel Decaestecker; Anne-Françoise Spinoit
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-03-25

Review 5.  Robotic live donor hysterectomy.

Authors:  Pernilla Dahm-Kähler; Niclas Kvarnström; Mats Brännström
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.640

Review 6.  Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: an update.

Authors:  Harry V M Spiers; Videha Sharma; Alexander Woywodt; Rajesh Sivaprakasam; Titus Augustine
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2021-11-15

7.  Robotic Versus Open Kidney Transplantation from Deceased Donors: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Riccardo Campi; Alessio Pecoraro; Vincenzo Li Marzi; Agostino Tuccio; Saverio Giancane; Adriano Peris; Calogero Lino Cirami; Alberto Breda; Graziano Vignolini; Sergio Serni
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-04-01

Review 8.  Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: Is it getting ready for prime time?

Authors:  Vincenzo Li Marzi; Alessio Pecoraro; Maria Lucia Gallo; Leonardo Caroti; Adriano Peris; Graziano Vignolini; Sergio Serni; Riccardo Campi
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2022-07-18

9.  Results and Lessons Learned on Robotic Assisted Kidney Transplantation.

Authors:  Mireia Musquera; Lluis Peri; Tarek Ajami; Ignacio Revuelta; Laura Izquierdo; Claudia Mercader; Alba Sierra; Fritz Diekmann; Maurizio D'Anna; Concepción Monsalve; Antonio Alcaraz
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 3.411

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.