Top

Published in:

01-06-2020 | Topic Paper

The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon

Authors: Erika Palagonia, Elio Mazzone, Geert De Naeyer, Frederiek D’Hondt, Justin Collins, Pawel Wisz, Fijs W. B. Van Leeuwen, Henk Van Der Poel, Peter Schatteman, Alexandre Mottrie, Paolo Dell’Oglio

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the available literature evidence that discusses the effect of surgical experience on patient outcomes in robotic setting. This information is used to help understand how we can develop a learning process that allows surgeons to maximally accommodate patient safety.

Methods

A literature search of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Scopus database was performed. Original and review articles published in the English language were included after an interactive peer-review process of the panel.

Results

Robotic surgical procedures require high level of experience to guarantee patient safety. This means that, for some procedures, the learning process might be longer than originally expected. In this context, structured training programs that assist surgeons to improve outcomes during their learning processes were extensively discussed. We identified few structured robotic curricula and demonstrated that for some procedures, curriculum trained surgeons can achieve outcomes rates during their initial learning phases that are at least comparable to those of experienced surgeons from high-volume centres. Finally, the importance of non-technical skills on patient safety and of their inclusion in robotic training programs was also assessed.

Conclusion

To guarantee safe robotic surgery and to optimize patient outcomes during the learning process, standardized and validated training programs are instrumental. To date, only few structured validated curricula exist for standardized training and further efforts are needed in this direction.

Makary MA, Daniel M (2016) Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 353:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139 CrossRef

Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds) (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DC

World Health Organization (2009) WHO guidelines for safe surgery: safe surgery saves lives

Mazzone E, Mistretta FA, Knipper S, Tian Z, Larcher A, Widmer H et al (2019) Contemporary North-American assessment of robot-assisted surgery rates and total hospital charges for major surgical uro-oncological procedures. J Endourol 33(6):438–447PubMedCrossRef

Sridhar AN, Briggs TP, Kelly JD, Nathan S (2017) Training in robotic surgery—an overview. Curr Urol Rep 18(8):58PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Schreuder HWR, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP, Schijven MP, Verheijen RHM (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119(2):137–149PubMedCrossRef

Brook NR, Dell’Oglio P, Barod R, Collins J, Mottrie A (2018) Comprehensive training in robotic surgery. Curr Opin Urol 29(1):1–9CrossRef

Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R et al (2015) Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 116(1):93–101PubMedCrossRef

Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST et al (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 152(3):477–488 PubMedCrossRef

10.

Collins JW, Levy J, Stefanidis D, Gallagher A, Coleman M, Cecil T et al (2019) Utilising the delphi process to develop a proficiency-based progression train-the-trainer course for robotic surgery training. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.12.044 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Fiorini P, Grespan L. SAFROS project: patient safety in robotic surgery. Seventh framework programme research project (FP7-ICT-2009.5.2). University of Verona

12.

Vickers A, Savage C, Bianco F, Mulhall J, Sandhu J, Guillonneau B et al (2011) Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center. Eur Urol 59(3):317–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.045 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Thompson JE, Egger S, Böhm M, Siriwardana AR, Haynes A-M, Matthews J et al (2017) Superior biochemical recurrence and long-term quality-of-life outcomes are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve - updated analysis of a prospective single-surgeon cohort of 2206 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 73(5):664–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.035 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Collins JW, Tyritzis S, Nyberg T, Schumacher MC, Laurin O, Adding C et al (2014) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal neobladder—what is the effect of the learning curve on outcomes? BJU Int 113(1):100–107PubMedCrossRef

15.

Larcher A, Muttin F, Peyronnet B, De Naeyer G, Khene ZE, Dell’Oglio P et al (2018) The learning curve for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: impact of surgical experience on perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.042 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA et al (2007) The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(15):1171–1177PubMedCrossRef

17.

Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P (2007) Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(2):255–260PubMedCrossRef

18.

Subramonian K, Muir G (2004) The “learning curve” in surgery: what is it, how do we measure it and can we influence it? BJU Int 93(9):1173–1174PubMedCrossRef

19.

Abboudi H, Khan MS, Guru KA, Froghi S, De Win G, Van Poppel H et al (2014) Learning curves for urological procedures: a systematic review. BJU Int 114(4):617–629PubMedCrossRef

20.

Di Pierro GB, Wirth JG, Ferrari M, Danuser H, Mattei A (2014) Impact of a single-surgeon learning curve on complications, positioning injuries, and renal function in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection. Urology 84(5):1106–1111PubMedCrossRef

21.

Monnerat Lott F, Siqueira D, Argolo H, Lindberg Nobrega B, Campos FS, Favorito LA (2018) Analysis of the learning curve of surgeons without previous experience in laparoscopy to perform robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Adv Urol 2018:9073807PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Ou Y-C, Yang C-R, Wang J, Yang C-K, Cheng C-L, Patel VR et al (2011) The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int 108(3):420–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09847.x CrossRefPubMed

23.

O’Malley PJ, Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Hayes DM, Crowe H, Costello AJ (2006) Robotic radical prostatectomy in Australia: initial experience. World J Urol 24(2):165–170PubMedCrossRef

24.

Sharma NL, Papadopoulos A, Lee D, Mcloughlin J, Vowler SL, Baumert H et al (2010) First 500 cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from a single UK centre: learning curves of two surgeons. BJU Int 108(5):739–747PubMed

25.

Giberti C, Schenone M, Gallo F, Cortese P, Ninotta G (2011) 343 Robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (ralp): the “real” learning curve. Eur Urol Suppl 10(2):125. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569905611603394 CrossRef

26.

Gumus E, Boylu U, Turan T, Onol FF (2011) The learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 25(10):1633–1637. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0071 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, Castle E et al (2010) The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the international robotic cystectomy consortium. Eur Urol 58(2):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.024 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Prapotnich D, Yu K, Olivier F, Secin FP et al (2017) Learning curve of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: comprehensive evaluation and cumulative summation analysis of oncological outcomes. Urol Oncol 35(4):149.e1–149.e6CrossRef

29.

Ou YC, Yang CR, Wang J, Yang CK, Cheng CL, Patel VR et al (2011) The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int 108(3):420–425PubMedCrossRef

30.

Vickers AJ, Maschino A, Savage CJ, Cronin AM (2012) Assessing the learning curve for prostate cancer surgery BT. In: Patel VR (ed) Robotic urologic surgery. Springer, London, pp 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-800-1_6 CrossRef

31.

Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, Tuerk I, Koenig P, Martínez-Piñeiro L et al (2009) The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 10(5):475–480PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Bravi CA, Tin A, Vertosick E, Mazzone E, Martini A, Dell’Oglio P et al (2019) The impact of experience on the risk of surgical margins and biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a learning-curve study. J Urol 202(1):108–113PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

33.

Thompson JE, Egger S, Böhm M, Haynes A-M, Matthews J, Rasiah K et al (2014) Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 65(3):521–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.030 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Leroy TJ, Thiel DD, Duchene DA, Parker AS, Igel TC, Wehle MJ et al (2010) Safety and peri-operative outcomes during learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons versus experienced open radical prostatectomy surgeons incorporating robot-assisted L. J Endourol 24(10):1665–1669PubMedCrossRef

35.

Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Sangalli M, Ficarra V (2010) Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours. Eur Urol 58(1):127–132PubMedCrossRef

36.

Dias BH, Ali MS, Dubey S, Krishnaswamy SA, Rao AR, Dubey D (2018) Impact of learning curve on the perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal tumors. Indian J Urol 34(1):62–67PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

37.

Xie Y, Ma X, Gu L, Li H, Lv X, Gao Y et al (2016) Associating the learning curve and tumor anatomical complexity with the margins, ischemia, and complications rate after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Int J Surg 36(Pt A):219–224PubMedCrossRef

38.

Hanzly M, Frederick A, Creighton T, Atwood K, Mehedint D, Kauffman EC et al (2015) Learning curves for robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 29(3):297–303PubMedCrossRef

39.

Larcher A, Muttin F, Peyronnet B, De Naeyer G, Khene Z, Dell P et al (2018) The learning curve for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: impact of surgical experience on perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 75(2):253–256PubMedCrossRef

40.

Paulucci DJ, Abaza R, Eun DD, Hemal AK, Badani KK (2017) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: continued refinement of outcomes beyond the initial learning curve. BJU Int 119(5):748–754PubMedCrossRef

41.

Richards KA, Kader K, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, Hemal AK (2011) Does initial learning curve compromise outcomes for robot-assisted radical cystectomy? A critical evaluation of the first 60 cases while establishing a robotics program. J Endourol 25(9):1553–1558PubMedCrossRef

42.

Mottrie A, Novara G (2014) Is surgery a never-ending learning process? BJU Int 114(4):472–473PubMedCrossRef

43.

Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, Ficarra V, Novara G, Van Der Poel H et al (2015) Pilot validation study of the european association of urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol 68(2):292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.025 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel H, Dasgupta P, Montorsi F, Gandaglia G (2016) The european association of urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol Focus 2(1):105–108PubMedCrossRef

45.

Jayakumar N, Brunckhorst O, Dasgupta P, Khan MS, Ahmed K (2015) e-Learning in surgical education: a systematic review. J Surg Educ 72(6):1145–1157CrossRefPubMed

46.

https://www.intuitive.com/. Accessed 2015

47.

Kumar A, Smith R, Patel VR (2015) Current status of robotic simulators in acquisition of robotic surgical skills. Curr Opin Urol 25(2):168–174PubMedCrossRef

48.

Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2016) A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol 69(6):1065–1080PubMedCrossRef

49.

Larcher A, Turri F, Bianchi L, Dell’Oglio P, Collins J, Capitanio U et al (2019) Virtual reality validation of the erus simulation-based training programmes: results from a high-volume training centre for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.008 CrossRefPubMed

50.

Gallagher A (2012) Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education: what it is and how to do it. Ulster Med J 81(3):107–113PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Gallagher A (2018) Proficiency-based progression simulation training for more than an interesting educational experience. J Musculoskelet Surg Res 2(4):139CrossRef

52.

Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187(1):247–252PubMedCrossRef

53.

Mazzone E, Dell’Oglio P, Mottrie A (2019) Outcome report of the first ERUS robotic urology curriculum-trained surgeon in Turkey: the importance of structured and validated training programs for global outcome improvement. Turk J Urol. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2019.19019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Dababneh H, Rossi MS, Pultrone CV, Vagnoni V et al (2018) The impact of a structured intensive modular training in the learning curve of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Arch Ital di Urol Androl 90(1):1–7CrossRef

55.

Bedir F, Kocaturk H, Canda AE, Atmaca AF, Demirdogen SO, Keske M et al (2019) Robotic radical prostatectomy in 93 cases: outcomes of the first ERUS robotic urology curriculum trained surgeon in Turkey. Turk J Urol 45:183PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

56.

Larcher A, De Naeyer G, Turri F, Dell’Oglio P, Capitanio U, Collins J et al (2019) The ERUS curriculum for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: structure definition and pilot clinical validation. Eur Urol 75:1023–1031PubMedCrossRef

57.

Dell’Oglio P, Turri F, Larcher A, D’Hondt F, Sanchez-Salas R, Bochner B et al (2019) Definition of a structured training curriculum for robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a delphi-consensus study led by the ERUS educational board. Eur Urol Suppl 18(1):e1116–e1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(19)30808-5 CrossRef

58.

BAUS. Robotic surgery curriculum—guidelines for training. https://www.baus.org.uk/professionals/baus_business/publications/83/robotic_surgery_curriculum/

59.

Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR, Rehman S, Ghani K, Autorino R et al (2013) Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 81(4):767–774PubMedCrossRef

60.

Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST et al (2012) Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Surg Endosc 26(6):1516–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2102-6 CrossRefPubMed

61.

Foell K, Finelli A, Yasufuku K, Bernardini MQ, Waddell TK, Pace KT et al (2013) Robotic surgery basic skills training: evaluation of a pilot multidisciplinary simulation-based curriculum. Can Urol Assoc J 7(11–12):430–434. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24381662 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

62.

Fellowship of international college of robotic surgeons. http://icrsonline.org/fellowship.html

63.

Attalla K, Raza S, Rehman S, Din R, Stegemann A, Perusich E et al (2013) Effectiveness of a dedicated robot-assisted surgery training program. Canadian J Urol 20:7084–7090

64.

Macgregor JM, Kim RS, Gallagher JT, Soliman MK, Ferrara A, Baldwin K et al (2012) Fundamentals of robotic surgery. Soc Am Gastrointest Endosc Surg Annu Meet. Poster P151

65.

Lyons C, Goldfarb D, Jones SL, Badhiwala N, Miles B, Link R et al (2013) Which skills really matter? proving face, content, and construct validity for a commercial robotic simulator. Surg Endosc 27(6):2020–2030PubMedCrossRef

66.

Smith R, Patel V, Satava R (2014) Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot 10(3):379–384PubMedCrossRef

67.

Cecilio-Fernandes D, Cnossen F, Jaarsma DADC, Tio RA (2018) Avoiding surgical skill decay: a systematic review on the spacing of training sessions. J Surg Educ 75(2):471–480PubMedCrossRef

68.

Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS, Smith R, Martin JR, Monfared S et al (2019) Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220 CrossRef

69.

Goldenberg MG, Goldenberg L, Grantcharov TP (2017) Surgeon performance predicts early continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 31(9):858–863PubMedCrossRef

70.

Angelo RL, Ryu RKN, Pedowitz RA, Beach W, Burns J, Dodds J et al (2015) A proficiency-based progression training curriculum coupled with a model simulator results in the acquisition of a superior arthroscopic Bankart skill set. Arthroscopy 31(10):1854–1871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.001 CrossRefPubMed

71.

Cates CU, Lönn L, Gallagher AG (2016) Prospective, randomised and blinded comparison of proficiency-based progression full-physics virtual reality simulator training versus invasive vascular experience for learning carotid artery angiography by very experienced operators. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 2(1):1–5. http://stel.bmj.com/content/2/1/1.abstract CrossRef

72.

Gallagher AG, Seymour NE, Jordan-Black J-A, Bunting BP, McGlade K, Satava RM (2013) Prospective, randomized assessment of transfer of training (ToT) and transfer effectiveness ratio (TER) of virtual reality simulation training for laparoscopic skill acquisition. Ann Surg 257(6):1025–1031PubMedCrossRef

73.

Van Sickle KR, Ritter EM, Baghai M, Goldenberg AE, Huang I-P, Gallagher AG et al (2008) Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of curriculum-based training for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. J Am Coll Surg 207(4):560–568PubMedCrossRef

74.

De Win G, Van Bruwaene S, Kulkarni J, Van Calster B, Aggarwal R, Allen C et al (2016) An evidence-based laparoscopic simulation curriculum shortens the clinical learning curve and reduces surgical adverse events. Adv Med Educ Pract 7:357–370PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

75.

Hung AJ, Chen J, Ghodoussipour S, Oh PJ, Liu Z, Nguyen J et al (2019) A deep-learning model using automated performance metrics and clinical features to predict urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14735 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Collins JW, Dell’Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR (2018) The Importance of Technical and Non-technical Skills in Robotic Surgery Training. Eur Urol Focus 4(5):674–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.08.018 CrossRefPubMed

77.

van der Poel H, Brinkman W, van Cleynenbreugel B, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg J-U, Liatsikos E et al (2016) Training in minimally invasive surgery in urology: European Association of Urology/International Consultation of Urological Diseases consultation. BJU Int 117(3):515–530PubMedCrossRef

78.

Yule J, Hill K, Yule S (2018) Development and evaluation of a patient-centred measurement tool for surgeons’ non-technical skills. BJS 105(7):876–884CrossRef

79.

Undre S, Healey AN, Darzi A, Vincent CA (2006) Observational assessment of surgical teamwork: a feasibility study. World J Surg 30(10):1774–1783PubMedCrossRef

80.

Raison N, Wood T, Brunckhorst O, Abe T, Ross T, Challacombe B et al (2017) Development and validation of a tool for non-technical skills evaluation in robotic surgery—the ICARS system. Surg Endosc 31(12):5403–5410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5622-x CrossRefPubMed

81.

Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D (2004) The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 13(Suppl 1):i85–i90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15465961 PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

82.

Nance JJ (2008) Why hospitals should fly: the ultimate flight plan to patient safety and quality care. Second River Healthcare Press, Bozeman, Montana

83.

Brewin J, Ahmed K, Challacombe B (2014) An update and review of simulation in urological training. Int J Surg 12(2):103–108PubMedCrossRef

84.

Brunckhorst O, Volpe A, Van Der Poel H, Mottrie A, Ahmed K, Catto J (2016) Training, simulation, the learning curve, and how to reduce complications in urology. Eur Urol Focus 2(1):10–18 PubMedCrossRef

85.

Chen J, Cheng N, Cacciamani G, Oh P, Lin-Brande M, Remulla D et al (2019) Objective assessment of robotic surgical technical skill: a systematic review. J Urol 201(3):461–469PubMedCrossRef

86.

Mazzocco K, Petitti DB, Fong KT, Bonacum D, Brookey J, Graham S et al (2009) Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg 197(5):678–685CrossRefPubMed

87.

Collins JW, Dell’Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR (2018) The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training. Eur Urol Focus 4(5):674–676PubMedCrossRef

88.

Flin R, Yule S, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G (2007) Teaching surgeons about non-technical skills. Surgeon 5(2):86–89PubMedCrossRef

89.

Dasgupta P, Ahmed K, Jaye P, Khan M (2014) Surgical simulation. Anthem Press, London

90.

Fanning RM, Gaba DM (2007) The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul Healthc 2(2):115–125PubMedCrossRef

91.

Undre S, Koutantji M, Sevdalis N, Gautama S, Selvapatt N, Williams S et al (2007) Multidisciplinary crisis simulations: the way forward for training surgical teams. World J Surg 31(9):1843–1853PubMedCrossRef

Title: The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon
Authors: Erika Palagonia
Elio Mazzone
Geert De Naeyer
Frederiek D’Hondt
Justin Collins
Pawel Wisz
Fijs W. B. Van Leeuwen
Henk Van Der Poel
Peter Schatteman
Alexandre Mottrie
Paolo Dell’Oglio
Publication date: 01-06-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02901-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Correction to: Metastasectomy for visceral and skeletal oligorecurrent prostate cancer

Surgical safety in radical cystectomy: the anesthetist's point of view—how to make a safe procedure safer

Making surgery safer in an increasingly digital world: the internet—friend or foe?

Clinical interest of PD-L1 immuno-histochemistry expression as a predictive factor of Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG) efficacy in refractory high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC)

Surgical safety

Evaluation of the prognostic role of co-morbidities on disease outcome in renal cell carcinoma patients