Advertisement

Comparison of clinical outcomes and automated performance metrics in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with and without trainee involvement

  • Andrew Chen
  • Saum Ghodoussipour
  • Micha B. Titus
  • Jessica H. Nguyen
  • Jian Chen
  • Runzhuo Ma
  • Andrew J. HungEmail author
Topic Paper

Abstract

Purpose

In this study, we investigate the effect of trainee involvement on surgical performance, as measured by automated performance metrics (APMs), and outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Methods

We compared APMs (instrument tracking, EndoWrist® articulation, and system events data) and clinical outcomes for cases with varying resident involvement. Four of 12 standardized RARP steps were designated critical (“cardinal”) steps. Comparison 1: cases where the attending surgeon performed all four cardinal steps (Group A) and cases where a trainee was involved in at least one cardinal step (Group B). Comparison 2, where Group A is split into Groups C and D: cases where attending performs the whole case (Group C) vs. cases where a trainee performed at least one non-cardinal step (Group D). Mann–Whitney U and Chi-squared tests were used for comparisons.

Results

Comparison 1 showed significant differences in APM profiles including camera movement time, third instrument usage, dominant instrument moving time, velocity, articulation, as well as non-dominant instrument moving time and articulation (all favoring Group A p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in re-admission rates (10.9% in Group A vs 0% in Group B, p < 0.02), but not for post-operative outcomes. Comparison 2 demonstrated a significant difference in dominant instrument articulation (p < 0.05) but not in post-operative outcomes.

Conclusions

Trainee involvement in RARP is safe. The degree of trainee involvement does not significantly affect major clinical outcomes. APM profiles are less efficient when trainees perform at least one cardinal step but not during non-cardinal steps.

Keywords

Automatic performance metrics Resident surgical training Surgical education Robotic surgical procedures Prostatectomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported in part by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging And Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23EB026493 and an Intuitive Surgical Clinical Research Grant. Anthony Jarc and Liheng Guo (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.) assisted with automated performance metric processing.

Author contributions

AC: Data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. S Ghodoussipour: Manuscript writing/editing. MBT: Data collection/management, manuscript writing/editing. JHN: Data collection/management, manuscript writing/editing. JC: Data collection/management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. RM: Data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. AJH: Project development, manuscript writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The study was supported in part by an Intuitive Surgical, Inc. clinical grant. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. provided the systems events data recorder.

Human and animals rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O'Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR, Dimick J, Banerjee M, Birkmeyer NJ, Michigan Bariatric Surgery C (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369(15):1434–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1300625 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castleberry AW, Clary BM, Migaly J, Worni M, Ferranti JM, Pappas TN, Scarborough JE (2013) Resident education in the era of patient safety: a nationwide analysis of outcomes and complications in resident-assisted oncologic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 20(12):3715–3724.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3079-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raval MV, Wang X, Cohen ME, Ingraham AM, Bentrem DJ, Dimick JB, Flynn T, Hall BL, Ko CY (2011) The influence of resident involvement on surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 212(5):889–898.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matulewicz RS, Pilecki M, Rambachan A, Kim JY, Kundu SD (2014) Impact of resident involvement on urological surgery outcomes: an analysis of 40,000 patients from the ACS NSQIP database. J Urol 192(3):885–890.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruhotina N, Dagenais J, Gandaglia G, Sood A, Abdollah F, Chang SL, Leow JJ, Olugbade K Jr, Rai A, Sammon JD, Schmid M, Varda B, Zorn KC, Menon M, Kibel AS, Trinh QD (2014) The impact of resident involvement in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. Can Urol Assoc J 8(9–10):334–340.  https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2170 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allard CB, Meyer CP, Gandaglia G, Chang SL, Chun FK, Gelpi-Hammerschmidt F, Hanske J, Kibel AS, Preston MA, Trinh QD (2015) The effect of resident involvement on perioperative outcomes in transurethral urologic surgeries. J Surg Educ 72(5):1018–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.04.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caveney M, Matthews C, Mirzazadeh M (2017) The effect of resident involvement in pelvic prolapse surgery: a retrospective study from a nationwide inpatient sample. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 23(6):387–391.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000436 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hung AJ, Oh PJ, Chen J, Ghodoussipour S, Lane C, Jarc A, Gill IS (2019) Experts vs super-experts: differences in automated performance metrics and clinical outcomes for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 123(5):861–868.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14599 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen J, Cheng N, Cacciamani G, Oh P, Lin-Brande M, Remulla D, Gill IS, Hung AJ (2019) Objective assessment of robotic surgical technical skill: a systematic review. J Urol 201(3):461–469.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.078 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hung AJ, Chen J, Jarc A, Hatcher D, Djaladat H, Gill IS (2018) Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a pilot study. J Urol 199(1):296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.081 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hung AJ, Chen J, Ghodoussipour S, Oh PJ, Liu Z, Nguyen J, Purushotham S, Gill IS, Liu Y (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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, Camacho I, Coughlin G, Rocco B (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59(5):702–707.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 66(5 Suppl):105–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.084 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Robotic Simulation and Education, Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of UrologyUniversity of Southern California Institute of UrologyLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations