Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Impact of Robotic Fellowship Experience on Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

Impact of Robotic Fellowship Experience on Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted... Background: We analyzed differences in patient selection and perioperative outcomes between robotic-fellowship trained and non-fellowship trained surgeons in their initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Methods: Data through surgeon case 10 was analyzed. Forty patients were identified from two fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20) and two non-fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20). Results: Fellowship trained surgeons performed surgery on masses of higher nephrometry score (8.0 vs. 6.0, p = 0.007) and more posterior location (60 vs. 25%, p = 0.03). Retroperitoneal approach was more common (50 vs. 0%, p = 0.0003). Fellowship trained surgeons trended toward shorter warm ischemia time (25.5 vs. 31.0 min, p = 0.08). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications (35 vs. 35%, p = 0.45) or final positive margin rates (0 vs. 15%, p = 0.23). Conclusion: Fellowship experience may allow for treating more challenging and posterior tumors in initial practice and significantly more comfort performing retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Current Urology Karger

Impact of Robotic Fellowship Experience on Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy

Loading next page...
 
/lp/karger/impact-of-robotic-fellowship-experience-on-perioperative-outcomes-of-vut3kkCGLy

References (26)

Publisher
Karger
Copyright
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
ISSN
1661-7649
eISSN
1661-7657
DOI
10.1159/000442845
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background: We analyzed differences in patient selection and perioperative outcomes between robotic-fellowship trained and non-fellowship trained surgeons in their initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Methods: Data through surgeon case 10 was analyzed. Forty patients were identified from two fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20) and two non-fellowship trained surgeons (n = 20). Results: Fellowship trained surgeons performed surgery on masses of higher nephrometry score (8.0 vs. 6.0, p = 0.007) and more posterior location (60 vs. 25%, p = 0.03). Retroperitoneal approach was more common (50 vs. 0%, p = 0.0003). Fellowship trained surgeons trended toward shorter warm ischemia time (25.5 vs. 31.0 min, p = 0.08). There was no significant difference in perioperative complications (35 vs. 35%, p = 0.45) or final positive margin rates (0 vs. 15%, p = 0.23). Conclusion: Fellowship experience may allow for treating more challenging and posterior tumors in initial practice and significantly more comfort performing retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

Journal

Current UrologyKarger

Published: Jan 1, 2016

Keywords: Laparoscopic surgeries; Fellowship training; Perioperative period; Partial nephrectomy; Robotics

There are no references for this article.