Top

Published in:

01-09-2013 | Original Article

Impact of trainee involvement with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Authors: Anil A. Thomas, Armen Derboghossians, Allen Chang, Rajiv Karia, David S. Finley, Jeff Slezak, Steven J. Jacobsen, Gary W. Chien

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2013

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery has been rapidly adopted within urology practice. As a result, academic centers are challenged with the burden of how to effectively train residents and fellows to perform robotic-assisted surgery without compromising outcomes. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes of trainee involvement with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) within our healthcare organization. We retrospectively reviewed RARP cases performed at our institution between September 2008 and December 2010 using a single da Vinci robotic platform. Trainees consisted of urology residents and fellows who operated with staff surgeons on select operating days, whereas two staff surgeon teams performed RARP on alternate days. We compared clinicopathologic variables including operating time, estimated blood loss, surgical margin rates, and complication rates between the trainee and staff-only surgeon groups. Overall, 1,019 RARP surgeries were performed within the study period and trainees participated in 162 cases (16 %). Clinical characteristics were similar between men undergoing surgery with a trainee and those without. Positive surgical margin rates were lower for patients with pT2 disease for cases with trainee involvement (11 vs. 19 %, p = 0.02), although overall margin rates and margin rates for patients with pT3 disease were similar between the groups (p = 0.34). Surgical cases involving trainees were longer (241 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in higher estimated blood loss (190 vs. 120 mL, p < 0.001) than the two staff surgeon cases. However, transfusion rates as well as intraoperative and postoperative complication rates did not differ significantly between groups. In conclusion, surgical margin rates were lower in teaching cases for patients with pT2 disease. Importantly, trainee involvement in RARP is safe, with similar perioperative outcomes to staff-only surgical cases. This information may be useful for training and surgical planning.

Kwon EO et al (2010) Rapid implementation of a robot-assisted prostatectomy program in a large health maintenance organization setting. J Endourol 24(3):461–465PubMedCrossRef

Palmer KJ et al (2008) Launching a successful robotic surgery program. J Endourol 22(4):819–824PubMedCrossRef

Zorn KC et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. J Urol 182(3):1126–1132PubMedCrossRef

Bolenz C et al (2010) Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57(3):453–458PubMedCrossRef

Thomas AA et al (2009) Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer risk in candidates for inguinal hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 209(3):371–376PubMedCrossRef

Schroeck FR et al (2008) Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology 71(4):597–601PubMedCrossRef

Acun Z et al (2004) A randomized prospective study of complications between general surgery residents and attending surgeons in near-total thyroidectomies. Surg Today 34(12):997–1001PubMedCrossRef

Nguyen CT et al (2008) Office based vasectomy can be performed by supervised urological residents with patient pain and morbidity comparable to those of a staff surgeon procedure. J Urol 180(4):1451–1454PubMedCrossRef

Nieder AM et al (2005) Transurethral bladder tumor resection: intraoperative and postoperative complications in a residency setting. J Urol 174(6):2307–2309PubMedCrossRef

10.

Sussman EJ et al (1982) Surgical outcome for resident and attending surgeons. Am J Surg 144(2):250–253PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gallagher AG et al (2005) Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg 241(2):364–372PubMedCrossRef

12.

Leroy TJ 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 laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 24(10):1665–1669PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lee JY et al (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185(4):1191–1197PubMedCrossRef

14.

Hung AJ et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186(3):1019–1024PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lee JY et al (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator––role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187(3):998–1002PubMedCrossRef

16.

Davis JW et al (2011) Effectiveness of postgraduate training for learning extraperitoneal access for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 25(8):1363–1369PubMedCrossRef

17.

Davis JW et al (2010) Initial experience of teaching robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons-in-training: can training be evaluated and standardized? BJU Int 105(8):1148–1154PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rashid HH et al (2006) Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 68(1):75–79PubMedCrossRef

19.

Thiel DD et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 22(6):1331–1338PubMedCrossRef

Title: Impact of trainee involvement with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
Authors: Anil A. Thomas
Armen Derboghossians
Allen Chang
Rajiv Karia
David S. Finley
Jeff Slezak
Steven J. Jacobsen
Gary W. Chien
Publication date: 01-09-2013
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-012-0378-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Impact of trainee involvement with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Evaluation of robotic minimally invasive surgical skills using motion studies

Per aspera ad astra (Through hardship to the stars)

Robotically-assisted laparoscopic biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch: the utility of the robotic system in bariatric surgery

A comparison of surgeon’s postural muscle activity during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery

Forward kinematic analysis of in-vivo robot for stomach biopsy

A special issue on selected papers from the 5th Hamlyn Symposium on Medical Robotics, 2012