» Articles » PMID: 26531112

Impact of Fellowship Training on Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Benchmarking Perioperative Safety and Outcomes

Overview
Journal J Robot Surg
Publisher Springer
Date 2015 Nov 5
PMID 26531112
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To provide perioperative benchmark data for surgeons entering practice from formal robotic training and performing robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RAPN). Perioperative outcomes of the first 100 RAPN from a surgeon entering into practice directly from robotic fellowship training were analyzed. Postoperative complications were categorized by Clavien-Dindo grade. Surgical "trifecta scores" and Margin, Ischemia, and Complication (MIC) scoring were utilized to assess surgical outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). Median age of the cohort was 63 years (22-81 years), and 34 (34.3%) patients were over age 65. Forty-one (41.4%) patients had a BMI > 30. Thirteen (13.1%) had RENAL 10-12 tumors, 22 of which (22.2%) were >4 cm in size. Median warm ischemia time was 17 min, and 13 patients had resection without warm ischemia. Five patients were converted to open partial nephrectomy, and 1 patient was converted to laparoscopic nephrectomy. Twenty-one patients (21.2%) experienced a complication, 6 of whom had a major (Clavien grade 3 or higher) complication with one grade 5 complication. Operating room time decreased with experience, but surgical complications and hospital stay did not change with experience. MIC score of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients was 74.7%, while the surgical trifecta was reached in 71.3 % of RCC patients. Surgeons may enter practice directly from formal robotic training and perform RAPN with perioperative outcomes, surgical complications, surgical trifecta scores, and MIC scoring in line with those the most experienced robotic partial nephrectomists.

Citing Articles

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews.

Lai T, Roxburgh C, Boyd K, Bouttell J BMJ Open. 2024; 14(9):e076750.

PMID: 39284694 PMC: 11409398. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750.


Association of Ancillary Pathology Findings in Non-neoplastic Renal Parenchyma and Renal Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy.

Geldmaker L, Kahn A, Parikh K, Porter I, Haehn D, Bajalia E Front Surg. 2021; 8:652524.

PMID: 33937316 PMC: 8085594. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.652524.


Elimination of surgical drains following robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy.

Kahn A, Shumate A, Ball C, Thiel D J Robot Surg. 2019; 13(6):741-745.

PMID: 30627941 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-00922-5.


Robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of perioperative course and postoperative outcome after 1 year.

Yang A, Barman N, Chin E, Herron D, Arvelakis A, LaPointe Rudow D J Robot Surg. 2017; 12(2):343-350.

PMID: 28861703 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-017-0741-x.

References
1.
Haseebuddin M, Benway B, Cabello J, Bhayani S . Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: evaluation of learning curve for an experienced renal surgeon. J Endourol. 2009; 24(1):57-61. DOI: 10.1089/end.2008.0601. View

2.
Simmons M . Morphometric characterization of kidney tumors. Curr Opin Urol. 2010; 21(2):99-103. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32834208d6. View

3.
Tanagho Y, Kaouk J, Allaf M, Rogers C, Stifelman M, Kaczmarek B . Perioperative complications of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: analysis of 886 patients at 5 United States centers. Urology. 2013; 81(3):573-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.067. View

4.
Hollenbeck B, Taub D, Miller D, Dunn R, Wei J . National utilization trends of partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a case of underutilization?. Urology. 2006; 67(2):254-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.050. View

5.
Kim E, Larson J, Figenshau M, Figenshau R . Perioperative complications of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2013; 15(1):377. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-013-0377-y. View