Early outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following completion of a structured training curriculum: a single surgeon cohort study

Abstract

Objective:

Technical skills in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are not mandated by the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme. The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) developed a structured curriculum; however, surgeons’ outcomes data from subsequent independent practice are limited. We describe the initial post-ERUS curriculum RARP outcomes for a United Kingdom (UK)-based surgeon.

Patients and methods:

This was a prospective single surgeon cohort study of 272 patients who underwent RARP between February 2016 and October 2019 in a high-volume UK centre and who were followed up at approximately 3 and 12 months. Positive surgical margins (PSMs), and 3- and 12-month continence rates were obtained and used to generate learning curves, with point of plateau estimated from logarithmic trendlines.

Results:

Overall (⩾3 mm) PSM rate for pT2 was 14.9% (5.4%) and pT3 was 22.6% (3.2%). Where data were available, 70.5% (of n=251) and 95.5% (of n=154) patients achieved social continence (0–1 pads) at 3 and 12 months, respectively. PSM and 3-month social continence rates plateaued at ~175 and ~100 cases, respectively.

Conclusion:

Following completion of the ERUS RARP curriculum, early oncological and functional outcomes consistent with published standards are rapidly achievable in independent practice. These data exemplify the potential value of a standardised RARP training curriculum to mitigate possible compromises in outcomes.

Level of evidence:

Keywords

Robot-assisted surgery prostatectomy modular training curriculum learning curve prostate cancer treatment outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Center

Jemal

Lortet-Tieulent

, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1079–1092.

ISCP. The Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum – Urology. Available from: https://www.iscp.ac.uk/static/public/syllabus/syllabus_u_2016.pdf.

Zorn

Gautam

Shalhav

, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 2009; 182: 1126–1132. 2009/07/25.

Volpe

Ahmed

Dasgupta

, et al. Pilot validation study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 292–299.

Ahmed

Khan

Mottrie

, et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 2015; 116: 93–101.

Lovegrove

Elhage

Khan

, et al. Training modalities in robot-assisted urologic surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 2017; 3: 102–116.

Stolzenburg

Schwaibold

Bhanot

, et al. Modular surgical training for endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2005; 96: 1022–1027.

Stewart

Phipps

Little

, et al. Description and validation of a modular training system for laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1512–1517.

Schiavina

Borghesi

Dababneh

, et al. The impact of a structured intensive modular training in the learning curve of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2018; 90: 1–7.

10.

Bedir

Keske

Demirdogen

, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in 93 cases: outcomes of the first ERUS robotic urology curriculum trained surgeon in Turkey. Turk J Urol 2019; 45: 183–188.

11.

Gleason

Mellinger

GT.

Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111: 58–64.

12.

Nilsson

Carlsson

Laven

, et al. Karolinska prostatectomy: a robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006; 40: 453–458.

13.

Menon

Tewari

Peabody

Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003; 169: 2289–2292.

14.

Dindo

Demartines

Clavien

PA.

Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205–213.

15.

Thompson

Sridhar

Tan

, et al. Pathological findings and magnetic resonance imaging concordance at salvage radical prostatectomy for local recurrence following partial ablation using high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol 2019; 201: 1134–1143.

16.

Avery

Donovan

Peters

, et al. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2004; 23: 322–330.

17.

Boorjian

Eastham

Graefen

, et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 664–675.

18.

Holze

Mende

Healy

, et al. Comparison of various continence definitions in a large group of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a multicentre, prospective study. BMC Urol 2019; 19: 70.

19.

Steineck

Bjartell

Hugosson

, et al. Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 559–568.

20.

Mottet

Bellmunt

Bolla

, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618–629.

21.

Preisser

van den Bergh

RCN

Gandaglia

, et al. Effect of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on oncologic outcomes in patients with D’Amico intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 2020; 203: 338–343.

22.

Rosen

Riley

Wagner

, et al. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

23.

BAUS. Radical prostatectomy outcomes data, https://www.baus.org.uk/patients/surgical_outcomes/radical_prostatectomy/hospital.aspx?id=196 (2018).

24.

Menon

Robotic radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003; 91: 175–176.

25.

Keswani

Beck

Meier

, et al. Day of surgery and surgical start time affect hospital length of stay after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 2426–2431.

26.

Laird

Fowler

Good

, et al. Contemporary practice and technique-related outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the UK: a report of national outcomes. BJU Int 2015; 115: 753–763.

27.

Rajan

Hagman

Sooriakumaran

, et al. Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a large European single-centre cohort with median 10-year follow-up. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4: 351–359.

28.

Mazzon

Sridhar

Busuttil

, et al. Learning curves for robotic surgery: a review of the recent literature. Curr Urol Rep 2017; 18: 89.

29.

Herrell

Smith

Jr.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve?

Urology 2005; 66: 105–107.

30.

Good

Stewart

Laird

, et al. A critical analysis of the learning curve and postlearning curve outcomes of two experience- and volume-matched surgeons for laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2015; 29: 939–947.

31.

Thompson

Egger

Bohm

, et al. Superior biochemical recurrence and long-term quality-of-life outcomes are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve – updated analysis of a prospective single-surgeon cohort of 2206 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 664–671.

32.

Sooriakumaran

John

Wiklund

, et al. Learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of 3794 patients. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2011; 63: 191–198.

33.

Mottrie

Gallina

De Wil

, et al. Balancing continence function and oncological outcomes during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int 2011; 108: 999–1006.

34.

Subramonian

Muir

The ‘learning curve’ in surgery: what is it, how do we measure it and can we influence it?

BJU Int 2004; 93: 1173–1174.

35.

Patel

Sivaraman

Coelho

, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 702–707.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

0.00 MB

0.01 MB