Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using modular training programme in a private hospital

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study was to demonstrate an efficacious robotic fellowship model that balances safety of patients, time efficiency and adequate training, in a private hospital. Sixty-four patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using a 13-step modular training programme in a single private institute. The patients were compared with 64 consecutive patients operated on by the mentoring surgeon immediately prior to the implementation of the programme. The main parameters analysed included console time, total operating time, blood loss, positive surgical margin rate and postoperative complications. There was a marginal difference in mean console time (92.67 vs. 90.41 min; p = 0.02). Statistical difference disappeared when comparing mean total operating time (136.09 vs. 134.14 min; p = 0.16), mean blood loss (165 vs. 172 ml; p = 0.96) and margin positivity (8 vs. 13; p = 0.34). The trainee was able to complete significant numbers of modular training steps whilst maintaining momentum of the operation from the commencement of the fellowship programme. This study demonstrates that a comprehensive modular training programme in complicated robotic procedures could be implemented without compromising patient safety or time efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bivalacqua TJ, Pierrorazio PM, Su LM (2009) Open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: optimizing the surgical approach. Surg Oncol 18:223–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 63:819–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92:205–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T (2003) Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 169:1689–1693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lepor H (2005) Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 7:115–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boccon-Gibod L (2006) Radical prostatectomy: open? Laparoscopic? Robotic? Eur Urol 49:598–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rozet F, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2006) Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 24:171–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zorn KC et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 182(3):1126–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leroy TJ et al (2010) Safety and peri-operative outcomes during learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons versus experienced open radical prostatectomy surgeons incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 24(10):1665–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee JY et al (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185(4):1191–1197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gamboa A, Santos R, Sargent E, Louie M, Box G, Sohn K et al (2009) Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns. J Urol 181:778–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schroeck FR et al (2008) Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology 71(4):597–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis JW et al (2011) Effectiveness of postgraduate training for learning extraperitoneal access for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 25(8):1363–1369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis JW et al (2010) Initial experience of teaching robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons-in-training: can training be evaluated and standardized? BJU Int 105(8):1148–1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rashid HH et al (2006) Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 68(1):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thiel DD et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 22(6):1331–1338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ali M, Rasmussen J, BhaskerRao B (2007) Teaching robotic surgery: a stepwise approach. Surg Endosc 21:912–915

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee J, Mucksavage P, Sundaram C, McDougall E (2011) Best practice for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185:1191–1197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Katz R, Borkowski T, Antiphon P et al (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal aproach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 170:416–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Samavedi S (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol 22:2299–2305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P et al (2007) Early continence recovery after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol 52:376–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stolzenburg J, Rabenalt R, Do M, Horn L, Liatsikos E (2006) Modular training for residents with no prior experience with open pelvic surgery in endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49:491–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gray K, Heathcote P, Nicol D (2008) Does teaching affect outcome with major open surgery? ANZ J Surg 78:646–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M (2007) Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2,766 procedures. Cancer 110(9):1951–1958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55(5):1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel VR, Chammas MF Jr, Shah S (2007) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review of the current state of affairs. Int J Clin Pract 61:309–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Herrell SD, Smith JA (2005) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 66:105–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vickers AJ, Blanco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA et al (2007) The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1171–1177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P et al (2011) A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 59:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y et al (2010) Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol 183:990–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Greenslopes Private Hospital, Greenslopes, Australia

    Handoo Rhee, Jason Paterdis & Peter Heathcote

Authors
  1. Handoo Rhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Paterdis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Heathcote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Handoo Rhee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rhee, H., Paterdis, J. & Heathcote, P. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using modular training programme in a private hospital. J Robotic Surg 7, 339–344 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0395-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-013-0395-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation