Advertisement

Robotic Urologic Surgery: How to Make an Effective Robotic Program—A European Perspective

  • Paolo Umari
  • Giorgio Gandaglia
  • Nicola Fossati
  • Alessandro Volpe
  • Ruben De Groote
  • Alexandre Mottrie
Chapter
  • 610 Downloads

Abstract

Over the last decade the introduction of novel technologies substantially changed our approach to patients with urologic pathologies. Worldwide the number of robotic procedures performed per year is rapidly increasing. In current literature the relevance of robotic surgical training is progressively increasing although it is not easy to define and validate standardized paths for surgeons that are approaching for the first time to robotic surgery. In this context, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) made several efforts in order to develop and validate an educational program for surgeons starting their robotic career.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Robotic curriculum Training Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 2012;62:368–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol. 2014;66:666–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X.
  4. 4.
    Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1419–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:431–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Montorsi F. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:418–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, Maschino AC, Laudone VP, Dechet CB, et al. Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol. 2012;187:2087–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Rasiah K, et al. 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. 2014;65:521–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, Brown M, De Marco V, Gan M, et al. Pilot validation study of the European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol. 2015;68:292–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R, et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int. 2015;116:93–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan R, Aydin A, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Simulation-based training for prostate surgery. BJU Int. 2015;116:665–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP, Schijven MP, Verheijen RH. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more struc- tured approach: a systematic review. BJOG. 2012;119:137–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sood A, Jeong W, Ahlawat R, Campbell L, Aggarwal S, Menon M, et al. Robotic surgical skill acquisition: what one needs to know? J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11:10–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A, Volpe A, Khan MS, Challacombe B, et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg. 2015;13:115–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leow JJ, Chang SL, Meyer CP, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database. Eur Urol. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.044.
  17. 17.
    Luthringer T, Aleksic I, Caire A, Albala DM. Developing a successful robotics program. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(1):40–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, et al. Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery. 2004 Jan;135(1):21–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sood A, Ghani KR, Ahlawat R, Modi P, Abaza R, Jeong W, et al. Application of the statistical process control method for prospective patient safety monitoring during the learning phase: robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia (IDEAL Phase 2a-b). Eur Urol 2014 Aug;66(2):371–378. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.055. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
  20. 20.
    Yule S, Rowley D, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Duncan J, et al. Experience matters: comparing novice and expert ratings of non-technical skills using the NOTSS system. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79(3):154–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel HG, et al. The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol. 2016;2:105–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: From theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990;263:441–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thiel DD, Lannen A, Richie E, Dove J, Gajarawala NM, Igel TC. Simulation-based training for bedside assistants can benefit experienced robotic prostatectomy teams. J Endourol. 2013;27:230–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186:1019–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol. 2012;187:630–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wiener S, Haddock P, Shichman S, et al. Construction of a urologic robotic surgery training curriculum: how many simulator sessions are required for residents to achieve competency? J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1289–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cacciamani G, De Marco V, Siracusano S, et al. A new training model for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis and posterior muscle-fascial reconstruction: the Verona training technique. J Robotic Surg. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0626-4.
  28. 28.
    Ahmed K, Jawad M, Dasgupta P, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Khan MS. Assessment and maintenance of competence in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:403–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Price DT, Chari RS, Neighbors JD Jr, Eubanks S, Schuessler WW, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the canine model. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1996;6:405–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ, Pan MM, Desai MM, Gill IS, et al. External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3261–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:48–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Flin R, Goeters K, Amalberti R, et al. The development of the NOTECHS system for evaluating pilots’ CRM skills. Hum Factors Aerospace Saf. 2003;3:95–117.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morgan MS, Shakir NA, Garcia-Gil M, Ozayar A, Gahan JC, Friedlander JI, et al. Single-versus dual-console robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in a teaching institution. World J Urol. 2015;33:781–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170:1738.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology. 2005;66:105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram C. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1191–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Umari
    • 1
  • Giorgio Gandaglia
    • 2
  • Nicola Fossati
    • 2
  • Alessandro Volpe
    • 3
  • Ruben De Groote
    • 4
  • Alexandre Mottrie
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of UrologyASUIT, University of TriesteTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Division of Oncology/Unit of UrologyIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Urological Research InstituteMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Urology, Maggiore della Carità HospitalUniversity of Eastern PiedmontNovaraItaly
  4. 4.Department of UrologyOnze-Lieve-Vrouw HospitalAalstBelgium
  5. 5.ORSI AcademyMelleBelgium

Personalised recommendations