Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
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.
Current Urology – Karger
Published: Jan 1, 2016
Keywords: Laparoscopic surgeries; Fellowship training; Perioperative period; Partial nephrectomy; Robotics
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.