Impact of Resident Involvement on Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes

The effect of trainee involvement on surgical outcomes and complications of male infertility surgical procedures

In this study, we sought to determine the effect of trainee (resident or fellow physician) involvement in male infertility surgical procedures on patient surgical outcomes and complications. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was retrospectively reviewed for fertility surgical procedures from 2006 to 2012. The procedures included were as follows: epididymectomy, spermatocelectomy, varicocelectomy ± hernia repair, ejaculatory duct resection, vasovasostomy, vasoepididymostomy and 'unlisted procedure male genital system' (to capture sperm retrieval procedures). A variety of peri- and post-operative outcomes were examined. Trainee and nontrainee-involved groups were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum tests, followed by logistic regression, univariate and multivariate analyses. 924 cases were included: 309 with trainees and 615 without. The median post-graduate trainee year was 3 (range: 0-10). Patients in the trainee-involved cohort had higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, steroid usage and black race. Mean operative time was 42.5% longer in trainee-involved cases, even after controlling for other covariates (76.2 vs. 49.5 min, p = .00). Hospital stay length was also longer in trainee-involved cases (0.41 vs. 0.35 days, p = .02). There were no differences in superficial infections (p = 1.00), deep wound infections (p = 1.00), urinary tract infections (p = .26), or reoperations (p = .23) with or without trainee involvement.

Impact of Urology Resident Involvement on intraoperative, Long-Term Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of resident involvement in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy on oncologic, functional, and intraoperative outcomes, both short and long term.

METHODS

We queried our prospectively maintained database of prostate cancer patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy from November 20, 2007 to December 27, 2016. We analyzed cases performed by 1 surgeon on a specific day of the week when the morning case involved at least 1 resident (R) and the afternoon case involved the attending physician only (nonresident [NR]). We compared R versus NR on a number of clinical, perioperative, and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 230 NR and 230 R cases met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Over one third (36.7%) of the NR group was Gleason 4+3 (Grade Group 3) or higher, relative to 25.9% of the R group, P = .015. Median operative time (OT) was significantly longer for R versus NR (200 minutes versus 156 minutes, P<.001) as was robotic time (161 minutes versus119 minutes, P<.001). No significant differences were noted for any other measure. Median follow-up for oncological outcomes was 30 and 33.5 months for NR and R, respectively (P= .3). Median OT and median estimated blood loss were both significantly greater in later years relative to the earlier years for R (2012-2016 versus 2007-2011; P< .001 for OT; P= .041 for median estimated blood loss) but not for NR.

CONCLUSION

Neither safety nor quality is diminished by R involvement in robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Infection following penile prosthesis placement at an academic training center remains low despite involvement of surgeons-in-training

Purpose

Primary care providers harbor misconceptions regarding penile prosthetic surgery, largely overestimating the rate of infection. Rates of infection following surgery for primary placement and revision are estimated as 1% to 3% and 10% to 18%, respectively. Our objective was to determine the contemporary incidence of infection following inflatable penile prostheses surgery at an academic training center where surgeons-in-training are routinely involved.

Materials and Methods

Review of a prospectively collected single-surgeon database was performed. All cases of inflatable penile prostheses placement from January 2011 through June 2017 were reviewed. Information regarding training level of assistant surgeon(s) was collected, and follow-up data was compiled regarding postoperative infections and need for revision surgery.

Results

Three hundred nine cases meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Mean patient age was 64.2 years, and mean follow-up was 28.7 months. Distribution involved 257 (83.2%) for primary placement, 45 (14.6%) for removal/replacement, and 7 (2.3%) in setting of prior device removal. Diabetes was noted in 31.1% of men. Surgeon-in-training involvement was noted in 100% of cases. Infection was confirmed in a patient who had skin breakdown over an area of corporal reconstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene. The overall postoperative infection rate was 0.3%.

Conclusions

In this series from an academic training center, infection following penile prosthetic surgery is low, similar to other centers of excellence, even with 100% involvement of surgeons-in-training. This data should be used to better inform primary care providers and members of the general public potentially interested in restoration of sexual function.

Participation of Colon and Rectal Fellows in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Effect on Surgical Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether involvement of colon and rectal fellows has an effect on short-term surgical and oncological outcomes in robotic rectal cancer surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From a dataset of 263 robotic-assisted rectal cancer operations, 114 case-matched patients over a 5-year period (January 2010-December 2015) were included in the study. Patients who underwent resection with and without fellow involvement were compared. Cases were matched according to age, body mass index, neoadjuvant therapy, and tumor location. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in tumor grade, type of surgical procedure, presence of an anastomosis, or diverting stoma between groups. In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of intraoperative or postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Estimated blood loss was higher in the fellow group compared to the consultant group (mean difference of 70mL, p = 0.007). For pathological outcomes, there was no difference in surrogate oncological quality indicators, specifically margin positivity and lymph node yield, between the 2 groups. Furthermore, fellow involvement did not adversely affect operative time.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that equivalent short-term surgical and oncological outcomes can be achieved with colorectal fellow participation in the field of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.