Ex Vivo Porcine Model for Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy Simulation at a High-Volume Tertiary Center: Resident Perception and Validation Assessment Using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills Tool

Three-dimensional computed tomography-based resection process map for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: propensity score matching of a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the effect of preoperative three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT)-based resection process map (RPM) imaging on the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 177 patients (RPM group, n = 92; non-RPM group, n = 85) who underwent this surgery between November 2012 and April 2022. Patient-specific contrast-enhanced CT images were used to construct an RPM, a 3D representation of the kidney showing the planned tumor resection and a 5 mm safety margin. Outcome analyses were performed using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was the trifecta achievement rate.

RESULTS

We extracted 90 cases. The trifecta achievement rate showed no significant differences between the RPM (73.3%) and non-RPM groups (73.3%). However, the RPM group had fewer Grade 3 and higher complications (0.0% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.026). The da Vinci Xi (OR 3.38, p = 0.016) and tumor diameter (OR 0.95, p = 0.013) were independent factors affecting trifecta achievement in multivariate analysis. Using RPM imaging was associated with the absence of Grade 3 and higher perioperative complications (OR 5.33, p = 0.036) in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Using preoperative 3D CT-based RPM images before RAPN may not affect trifecta achievement, but may reduce serious complication occurrence by providing detailed information on tumor resection.

Development and validation of metrics for a new RAPN training model

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is a complex and index procedure that urologists need to learn how to perform safely. No validated performance metrics specifically developed for a RAPN training model (TM) exist. A Core Metrics Group specifically adapted human RAPN metrics to be used in a newly developed RAPN TM, explicitly defining phases, steps, errors, and critical errors. A modified Delphi meeting concurred on the face and content validation of the new metrics. One hundred percent consensus was achieved by the Delphi panel on 8 Phases, 32 Steps, 136 Errors and 64 Critical Errors. Two trained assessors evaluated recorded video performances of novice and expert RAPN surgeons executing an emulated RAPN in the newly developed TM. There were no differences in procedure Steps completed by the two groups. Experienced RAPN surgeons made 34% fewer Total Errors than the Novice group. Performance score for both groups was divided at the median score using Total Error scores, into HiError and LoError subgroups. The LowErrs Expert RAPN surgeons group made 118% fewer Total Errors than the Novice HiErrs group. Furthermore, the LowErrs Expert RAPN surgeons made 77% fewer Total Errors than the HiErrs Expert RAPN surgeons. These results established construct and discriminative validity of the metrics. The authors described a novel RAPN TM and its associated performance metrics with evidence supporting their face, content, construct, and discriminative validation. This report and evidence support the implementation of a simulation-based proficiency-based progression (PBP) training program for RAPN.

Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has seen a global rise in adoption. Despite this, there is not a standardised training curricula nor a standardised measure of performance. We performed a systematic review across the surgical specialties in RAS and evaluated tools used to assess surgeons' technical performance. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for full texts published on or after January 2020-January 2022. Observational studies and RCTs were included; review articles and systematic reviews were excluded. The papers' quality and bias score were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Score for the observational studies and Cochrane Risk Tool for the RCTs. The initial search yielded 1189 papers of which 72 fit the eligibility criteria. 27 unique performance metrics were identified. Global assessments were the most common tool of assessment (n = 13); the most used was GEARS (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills). 11 metrics (42%) were objective tools of performance. Automated performance metrics (APMs) were the most widely used objective metrics whilst the remaining (n = 15, 58%) were subjective. The results demonstrate variation in tools used to assess technical performance in RAS. A large proportion of the metrics are subjective measures which increases the risk of bias amongst users. A standardised objective metric which measures all domains of technical performance from global to cognitive is required. The metric should be applicable to all RAS procedures and easily implementable. Automated performance metrics (APMs) have demonstrated promise in their wide use of accurate measures.

Analysis of KangDuo-SR-1500 and KangDuo-SR-2000 robotic partial nephrectomy from an operative and ergonomic perspective: a prospective controlled study in porcine models

The objective of this study is to explore the safety and effectiveness of two new models of KangDuo surgical robots for partial nephrectomy in porcine models, and evaluate the ergonomic characteristics from both subjective and objective perspectives. Twelve porcine models were equally divided for KD-SR-1500 (three-arm) and KD-SR-2000 (four-arm). The perioperative outcomes, and physical and mental workload of the surgeon were compared. Physical workload was evaluated with surface electromyography. Mental workload was evaluated with NASA-TLX. All surgeries were performed successfully. There were no differences in perioperative variables (p > 0.05). There were no perioperative complications. The mental workload in both groups was at a low level. KD-SR-2000 showed advantages in physical workload (p < 0.01). KD-SR-1500 and KD-SR-2000 are technically feasible, valid, and safe for RAPN in porcine models. KD-SR-2000 had ergonomic advantages over KD-SR-1500.

Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a need to standardize training in robotic surgery, including objective assessment for accreditation. This systematic review aimed to identify objective tools for technical skills assessment, providing evaluation statuses to guide research and inform implementation into training curricula.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ovid Embase/Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criterion: robotic surgery technical skills tools. Exclusion criteria: non-technical, laparoscopy or open skills only. Manual tools and automated performance metrics (APMs) were analysed using Messick's concept of validity and the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence and Recommendation (LoR). A bespoke tool analysed artificial intelligence (AI) studies. The Modified Downs-Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-seven studies were analysed, identifying: 8 global rating scales, 26 procedure-/task-specific tools, 3 main error-based methods, 10 simulators, 28 studies analysing APMs and 53 AI studies. Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and the da Vinci Skills Simulator were the most evaluated tools at LoR 1 (OCEBM). Three procedure-specific tools, 3 error-based methods and 1 non-simulator APMs reached LoR 2. AI models estimated outcomes (skill or clinical), demonstrating superior accuracy rates in the laboratory with 60 per cent of methods reporting accuracies over 90 per cent, compared to real surgery ranging from 67 to 100 per cent.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and automated assessment tools for robotic surgery are not well validated and require further evaluation before use in accreditation processes.PROSPERO: registration ID CRD42022304901.

Pediatric robotic surgery: issues in management-expert consensus from the Italian Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SARNePI) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Surgery (SICP)

BACKGROUND

Pediatric robotic-assisted surgeries have increased in recent years; however, guidance documents are still lacking. This study aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations, or best practice statements when evidence is lacking or inadequate, to assist surgical teams internationally.

METHODS

A joint consensus taskforce of anesthesiologists and surgeons from the Italian Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SARNePI) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Surgery (SICP) have identified critical areas and reviewed the available evidence. The taskforce comprised 21 experts representing the fields of anesthesia (n = 11) and surgery (n = 10) from clinical centers performing pediatric robotic surgery in the Italian cities of Ancona, Bologna, Milan, Naples, Padua, Pavia, Perugia, Rome, Siena, and Verona. Between December 2020 and September 2021, three meetings, two Delphi rounds, and a final consensus conference took place.

RESULTS

During the first planning meeting, the panel agreed on the specific objectives, the definitions to apply, and precise methodology. The project was structured into three subtopics: (i) preoperative patient assessment and preparation; (ii) intraoperative management (surgical and anesthesiologic); and (iii) postoperative procedures. Within these phases, the panel agreed to address a total of 18 relevant areas, which spanned preoperative patient assessment and patient selection, anesthesiology, critical care medicine, respiratory care, prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pain management.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration among surgeons and anesthesiologists will be increasingly important for achieving safe and effective RAS procedures. These recommendations will provide a review for those who already have relevant experience and should be particularly useful for those starting a new program.