Robot-assisted urological surgery: Current status and future perspectives

Can remote assistance for robotic surgery improve surgical performance in simulation training? A prospective clinical trial of urology residents using a simulator in south america

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate the role of remote proctoring during the initial training phases of a robotics curriculum using surgical robot skills simulator exercises.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective randomized study comprising 36 urology residents and junior staff urologists without previous robotic training. Group 1 (G1) performed exercises without any assistance or support, group 2 (G2) received support from in-person proctor, and group 3 (G3) from a remote proctor through a telementoring system. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted for each exercise and group.

RESULTS

The overall score approval rates (OSA) for the different skill exercises were Ring Walk 2 (RW2) 83%, Energy Dissection 2 (ED2) 81%, and Ring Walk 3 (RW3) 14%. RW2 OSA was higher on attempt 3 than on attempt 1 (83.3% vs. 63.9%, p=0.032). ED2 OSA rate was higher in attempt 3 than in attempt 1 (80.6% vs. 52.8%, p=0.002). RW2 OSA was similar among the groups. In ED2, both remote and live assistance were significantly related to upper OSA (G1=47.2%, G2=75.0%, G3=83.3%, p=0.002). RW3 had similar OSA among the groups, which can be explained by the high level of difficulty and low OSA in all the groups. However, in a sensitive quantitative analysis, the mean overall score of the participants in RW3 was higher in both proctored groups (G1=24, G2=57.5, G3=51.5, p=0.042).

CONCLUSION

Robotic performance increased significantly over three attempts for simulation exercises of low, medium, but not high-complexity. Proctoring, either in-person or remotely, has a positive impact on approval performance, particularly in intermediate tasks.

‘Robosurgeons vs. robosceptics’: can we afford robotic technology or can we afford not to?

Aim:

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robotic technology in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in comparison with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy.

Methods:

Cochrane, Medline and Embase databases were searched for randomised controlled trials to date on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy to assess clinical effectiveness. The British Association of Urology Surgeons database (2014–2016) and Cancer Research UK (2012–2014) were accessed in conjunction with media; keywords included: ‘Da Vinci’, ‘first robotic prostatectomy’, ‘hospital’ to estimate the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in the National Health Service.

Results:

Functional outcome rates improved with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; this benefits the National Health Service financially although the clinical effectiveness may not meet the threshold of clinical importance. Regarding cost-effectiveness, approximately 12/43 (27.9%) centres achieved 150 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year while 26/43 (60.4%) centres have managed to meet 100 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year in 2014–2016. A national mean of 120–130 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies per year for 2014–2016 was estimated.

Conclusion:

The cost of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is adequately justified if a high volume of surgeries (>150) are performed in high volume centres by high volume experienced surgeons per year. This can be achieved by subsidising the cost of robotic technology, centralisation and establishing robotic training centres.

Towards development and validation of an intraoperative assessment tool for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy training: results of a Delphi study

Introduction

As urology training shifts toward competency-based frameworks, the need for tools for high stakes assessment of trainees is crucial. Validated assessment metrics are lacking for many robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). As it is quickly becoming the gold standard for treatment of localized prostate cancer, the development and validation of a RARP assessment tool for training is timely.

Materials and methods

We recruited 13 expert RARP surgeons from the United States and Canada to serve as our Delphi panel. Using an initial inventory developed via a modified Delphi process with urology residents, fellows, and staff at our institution, panelists iteratively rated each step and sub-step on a 5-point Likert scale of agreement for inclusion in the final assessment tool. Qualitative feedback was elicited for each item to determine proper step placement, wording, and suggestions.

Results

Panelist’s responses were compiled and the inventory was edited through three iterations, after which 100% consensus was achieved. The initial inventory steps were decreased by 13% and a skip pattern was incorporated. The final RARP stepwise inventory was comprised of 13 critical steps with 52 sub-steps. There was no attrition throughout the Delphi process.

Conclusions

Our Delphi study resulted in a comprehensive inventory of intraoperative RARP steps with excellent consensus. This final inventory will be used to develop a valid and psychometrically sound intraoperative assessment tool for use during RARP training and evaluation, with the aim of increasing competency of all trainees.