Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 171–175 | Cite as

Live surgery: highly educational or harmful?

  • B. RoccoEmail author
  • A. A. C. Grasso
  • E. De Lorenzis
  • J. W. Davis
  • C. Abbou
  • A. Breda
  • T. Erdogru
  • R. Gaston
  • I. S. Gill
  • E. Liatsikos
  • B. Oktay
  • J. Palou
  • T. Piéchaud
  • J. U. Stolzenburg
  • Y. Sun
  • G. Albo
  • H. Villavicencio
  • X. Zhang
  • V. Disanto
  • P. Emiliozzi
  • V. Pansadoro
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Live surgery (LS) is considered a useful teaching opportunity. The benefits must be balanced with patient safety concerns. To evaluate the rate of complications of a series of urologic LS performed by experts during the Congress Challenge in Laparoscopy and Robotics (CILR).

Methods

We present a large, multi-institution, multi-surgeon database that derives from 12 CILR events, from 2004 to 2015 with a total of 224 cases. Radical prostatectomy (RP) was the most common procedure and a selection of complex cases was noted. The primary measure was postoperative complications and use of a Postoperative Morbidity Index (PMI) to allow quantitative weighing of postoperative complications.

Results

From 12 events, the number of cases increased from 11 in 2004 to 27 in 2015 and a total of 27 surgeons. Of 224 cases (164 laparoscopic and 60 robotic), there were 26 (11.6%) complications: 5 grade I, 5 grade II, 3 grade IIIa, 12 grade IIIb and 1 grade V, the latter from laparoscopic cystectomy. Analysis of PMI was 23 times higher from cystectomy compared to RP.

Conclusions

In the setting of live surgery, the overall rate of complications is low considering the complexity of surgeries. The PMI is not higher in more complex procedures, whereas RP seems very safe.

Keywords

Surgical complications Surgical education Live-surgery broadcast Training Mentoring Live case demonstration 

Notes

Author contribution

BR was involved in project development and edited the manuscript. AACG wrote the manuscript and was involved in data collection and analysis. EDL collected the data, wrote the manuscript and was involved in analysis. JWD edited the manuscript and was involved in supervision. CA organized the event and collected the data. AB collected the data and was involved in project development. TE organized the event and collected the data. RG organized the event and collected the data. ISG organized the event and collected the data. EL organized the event and collected the data. BO organized the event and collected the data. JP organized the event and collected the data. TP organized the event and collected the data. JUS organized the event and collected the data. YS organized the event and collected the data. GA analyzed the data and edited the manuscript. HV organized the event and collected the data. XZ organized the event and collected the data. VD created the event. PE organized the event and collected the data. VP created the event, edited the manuscript and was involved in supervision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Mullins JK, Borofsky MS, Allaf ME, Bhayani S, Kaouk JH, Rogers CG et al (2012) Live robotic surgery: are outcomes compromised? Urology 80:602–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sade RM (2008) Broadcast of surgical procedures as a teaching instrument in cardiothoracic surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:273–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artibani W, Parsons KF (2014) Reply from Authors re: Declan G. Murphy. Let the games begin (with EAU approval). Eur Urol 2014;66:98–100: No games: live surgery events endorsed by EAU under strict regulations. Eur Urol 66(1):100–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin RC II, Brennan MF, Jaques DP (2002) Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 235:803–813CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strasberg SM, Linehan DC, Hawkins WG (2009) The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications. Ann Surg 250:177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beilan J, Strakosha R, Palacios DA, Rosser CJ (2014) The postoperative morbidity index: a quantitative weighing of postoperative complications applied to urological procedures. BMC Urol 14:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Witjes JA, Compérat E, Cowan NC, Gakis G, Hernández V, Lebret T. EAU Guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer—limited update March 2017. http://uroweb.org/guideline/bladder-cancer-muscle-invasive-and-metastatic/. Accessed May 2017
  10. 10.
    Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH (2015) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(5):891–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T, Annerstedt M, Chan K, Murphy DG et al (2015) Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 67(3):376–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang K, Li H, Xia D, Hu Z, Zhuang Q, Liu J et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. PLoS One 9(5):95667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang X, Wang L, Zheng X, Wang X (2017) Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31(3):1045–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ogaya-Pinies G, Abdul-Muhsin H, Palayapalayam-Ganapathi H, Bonet X, Rogers T, Rocco B et al (2017) Safety of live robotic surgery: results from a single institution. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.08.004
  15. 15.
    Legemate JD, Zanetti SP, Baard J, Kamphuis GM, Montanari E, Traxer O et al. (2017) Outcome from 5-year live surgical demonstrations in urinary stone treatment: are outcomes compromised? World J Urol 35(11):1745–1756CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Artibani W, Ficarra V, Challacombe BJ, Abbou CC, Bedke J, Boscolo-Berto R et al (2014) EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur Urol 66(1):87–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Rocco
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. A. C. Grasso
    • 2
  • E. De Lorenzis
    • 2
  • J. W. Davis
    • 3
  • C. Abbou
    • 4
  • A. Breda
    • 5
  • T. Erdogru
    • 6
  • R. Gaston
    • 7
  • I. S. Gill
    • 8
  • E. Liatsikos
    • 9
  • B. Oktay
    • 10
  • J. Palou
    • 5
  • T. Piéchaud
    • 7
  • J. U. Stolzenburg
    • 11
  • Y. Sun
    • 12
  • G. Albo
    • 2
  • H. Villavicencio
    • 5
  • X. Zhang
    • 13
  • V. Disanto
    • 14
  • P. Emiliozzi
    • 14
  • V. Pansadoro
    • 14
  1. 1.Department of UrologyNuovo Ospedale Civile Sant’ Agostino Estense (N.O.C.S.A.E.) di Baggiovara, University of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Urology, Anderson Cancer CenterUniversity of TexasHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Department of UrologyHenri Mondor HospitalCréteilFrance
  5. 5.Urology DepartmentFundacio PuigvertCartagenaSpain
  6. 6.Departments of Urology and Minimally Invasive and Robotic SurgeryMemorial Atasehir HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  7. 7.Department of UrologyClinique Saint AugustinBordeauxFrance
  8. 8.Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern California Institute of UrologyLos AngelesUSA
  9. 9.Department of UrologyUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  10. 10.Medical Faculty, Department of UrologyUludag UniversityGorukleTurkey
  11. 11.Department of UrologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  12. 12.Department of Urology, Changhai HospitalSecond Military UniversityShanghaiChina
  13. 13.Department of Urology, Chinese PLA General HospitalMedical School of Chinese PLABeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  14. 14.Department of UrologyPansadoro FoundationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations