Peri- and post-operative results of initial robot-assisted radical prostatectomies of a surgeon graduating from a structured fellowship

• Autorzy: Salwa P. , Kielan W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: No validated training curriculum for robotic surgery exists so far. International scientific societies like ERUS (EAU Robotic Urology Section) seek to validate a structured training program for robotic surgeons. In 2014, ERUS launched Pilot Study II, a 6-month structured training program to allow a surgeon without prior robotic training to perform a complete RARP (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) independently and effectively. Aim of the study: Herewe report the detailed courses and training materials, specific surgical activities and perioperative efficacy and safety results of the first 52 RARP cases performed by a single surgeon after graduating from Pilot Study II. The aim is to compare these results with the literature and show if this sophisticated training helps patients undergoing this type of surgery achieve advantageous perioperative results. Material and methods: The fellowship was conducted from January to June 2014 and consisted of lectures on technical and non-technical skills, as well as e-learning, bedside assistance (at least 20), intensive training consisting of laboratory training (i.e., virtual reality simulation, dry lab (plastic model), wet lab on animal cadavers and living anaesthetized pigs) and dual-console live surgery followed by five months of modular training, where the trainee performed different steps of the surgery at the host center. After passing the final evaluation (a full recorded video of RARP evaluated blindly by robotic experts), the trainee was deemed capable of performing efficiently and safely a full case of RARP. Here we retrospectively report the content of training and perioperative results of the surgeon’s initial 52 RARPs performed from July 2014 to April 2015. Results: After graduating from the fellowship, the surgeon performed 52 cases of RARP. The mean patient age was 65.2 years, initial PSA 12.9 ng/ml, prostate volume 43.7 ml in TRUS, BMI 27.5, and 61% of patients had a prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. Because of internal regulations, every patient had a pelvic lymphadenectomy performed, three of whom had positive lymph nodes. The average estimated blood loss was 225.7 ml, and no patient needed intraoperative blood transfusion. The average console time was 174.2 minutes. Final full-mount pathology identified 23 patients (44.2%) with a locally advanced prostate cancer (T3 or T4). Positive surgical margins were present in three cases. A further 29 patients (55.8%) had locally confined disease (T2). Positive surgical margins were observed in 2 cases. Catheters were removed on the 5th postoperative day followed by a cystogram, with no urine leakage observed in 96.2% of cases. The safety of the procedure was good with one major (Clavien 4) and 13 minor (Clavien 1 and 2, i.e., uncomplicated urinary infection, urinary retention) complications. Conclusions: The study showed that graduating from an intensive and structured learning program in robotic surgery resulted in a faster learning curve, allowing the trainee to reach high safety parameters in performed surgeries. When compared with already published series, advantageous results could be observed. The study was limited by its retrospective design, the moderate number of patients and variables such as individual motivation, dexterity and attitude of the person in training. The advantages of such training should be further evaluated in controlled, multi-center trials.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Medical Science Pulse
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 13
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.17-21,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Salwa P.

• Urology Department, Medicover Hospital, Al.Rzeczypospolitej 5, 02-972 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Kielan W.

• Second Department and Clinic of General and Oncological Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Robert Koch-Institut und Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland. Krebs in Deutschland 2009/2010 [online] [cit. 15.02.2019]. Available from URL: http://www.rki.de.
• 2. Baade PD, Krnjacki LJ. International epidemiology of prostate cancer: geographical distribution and secular trends. Mol Nutr Food Res 2009; 53: 171–184.
• 3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 106–130.
• 4. Zeegers MP, Jellema A, Ostrer H. Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer 2003; 97(8): 1894–1903.
• 5. Ries LAG, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Clegg L, et al, ed. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2004. Section 23: Prostate Cancer. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2007.
• 6. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, D.K., AWMF): Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Langversion 3.1. 2014. AWMF Registernummer: 034/022OL.(In German)
• 7. Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431–452.
• 8. Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405–417.
• 9. Ficarra V, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418–430.
• 10. Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, Kang T, Park J, Jeong IG, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol 2011; 60(3): 413–419.
• 11. Abboudi H, Guru KA, Froghi S, de Win G, van der Poel M, Dasgupta P, et al. Learning curves for urological procedures: a systematic review. BJU Int 2014; 114: 617–629.
• 12. Nuttall M, Phillips N, Sharpin C, Gillatt D, McIntosh G, Emberton MA. Systematic review and critique of the literature relating hospital or surgeon volume to health outcomes for 3 urological cancer procedures. J Urol 2004; 172(6 Pt 1): 2145–2152.
• 13. Trinh QD, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, Hu JC, Shariat SF, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 786–798.
• 14. Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, Tuerk I, Koenig P, Martínez-Piñeiro L, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 475–480.
• 15. Lovegrove C, Mottrie A, Guru KA, Brown M, Challacombe B, Popert R, et al. Structured and modular training pathway for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): validation of the RARP Assessment Score and Learning Curve Assessment. Eur Urol 2016; 6(9): 526–535.
• 16. Salwa P, Schuette A, Harke N, Addali M, Witt J. Single surgeon perioperative and early continence results of initial 52 RARPs after graduating “ERUS robotic urology curriculum fellowship (pilot study II)” for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Eur Urol Supp 2015; 14(5): 79–80.
• 17. Wolanski P, Jones L, Mullavey T, Walsh S, Gianduzzo T. Preliminary results of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) after fellowship training and experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). BJU Int 2012 Dec; 110 Suppl 4: 64–70.
• 18. O’Malley PJ, Bouchier-Hayes DM, Crowe H, Costello AJ. Robotic radical prostatectomy in Australia: initial experience. World J Urol 2006; 24: 165–70.
• 19. Linn DJ. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a longer learning curve in a low volume practice. J Urol 2010; 183(4 Suppl. 1): e787.
• 20. Gyomber D, Parker F, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Robotic prostatectomy learning curves-an independent analysis of 13 unrelated surgeons over 5 years. J Endourol 2011; 25: A108–109.
• 21. Salwa P, Wagner C, Schuette A, Harke N, Witt J. Single surgeon perioperative and early functional results of initial 64 RARPs after graduating “ERUS robotic urology curriculum fellowship (pilot study II)” for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Eur Urol Supp 2016: 15(3): e666.
• 22. Salwa P. Perioperative, oncological and functional results of initial 375 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) performed by single, ERUS Fellowship-trained, surgeon. Eur Urol Supp 2018; 17(7): e2259.
• 23. Di Pierro GP, Mordasini L, Danuser H, Mattei A. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the setting of previous abdominal surgery: perioperative results, oncological and functional outcomes, and complications in a single surgeon’s series. Int J Surg 2016 Dec; 36(Pt A): 170–176.
• 24. Horovitz D, Feng C, Messing EM, Joseph JV. Extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the setting of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. J Endourol 2017 Apr; 31(4): 366–373.
• 25. Seo DY, Cho HJ, Cho JM, Kang JY, Yoo TK. Experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at a secondary training hospital: operation time, treatment outcomes, and complications with the accumulation of experience. Korean J Urol 2013; 54(8): 522–526.
• 26. Ou YC, Yang CK, Chang KS, Wang J, Hung SW, et al. The surgical learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single surgeon with 500 cases in Taiwan, China. Asian J Androl 2014 Sep-Oct; 16(5): 728–734.
• 27. Novara G, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382–404.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0013.0844