You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Robotics1 Apr 2014V7-06 RECIPIENT ROBOT ASSISTED KIDNEY TRANSPLANT LEARNING STEPS: FRAME-BY-FRAME VIDEO ANALYSIS Mahendra Bhandari, Deepansh Dalela, Akshay Sood, Rajesh Ahlawat, Pranjal Modi, Ronney Abaza, Mani Menon, Khurshid Ghani, and Wooju Jeong Mahendra BhandariMahendra Bhandari More articles by this author , Deepansh DalelaDeepansh Dalela More articles by this author , Akshay SoodAkshay Sood More articles by this author , Rajesh AhlawatRajesh Ahlawat More articles by this author , Pranjal ModiPranjal Modi More articles by this author , Ronney AbazaRonney Abaza More articles by this author , Mani MenonMani Menon More articles by this author , Khurshid GhaniKhurshid Ghani More articles by this author , and Wooju JeongWooju Jeong More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.2036AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Transplant surgeons learning robot-assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) should master skills specific to robotic vascular anastomoses in the dry and wet laboratory before proctoring on a patient. We compared the video recordings of the vascular anastomoses done by two groups of RAKT-performing transplant surgeons: one with extensive robotic experience, and other with minimal robotic orientation. We aimed to identify specific domains that require training to ensure safe and efficient performance of RAKT. METHODS 41 patients undergoing recipient RAKT were classified into two groups based on the transplant surgeon’s robotic experience: Group 1 (n=27) with extensive robotic experience (>2000 cases), and Group 2 (n=14) with minimal robotic orientation (<10 cases). Surgeons in both groups had extensive open kidney transplant experience (>2000 cases for each). Measures of surgical process and functional patient outcomes were recorded for all 41 patients. Experienced robotic and transplant surgeons proctored all the operations to minimize compromise in functional patient outcomes. Two independent reviewers retrospectively analyzed the video recordings of venous and arterial anastomoses of 6 cases from each group (3 initial cases and 3 final cases in each group). RESULTS The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of patients in both the groups. Console camera modulation to optimize magnification of the operating field, tissue handling in absence of tactile feedback, and coordination of the robotic needle driver and forceps with the needle and suture were recognized as vital training points for vascular anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS We found that even experienced open kidney transplant surgeons need extensive training for robotic surgery. The differences in vascular anastomoses techniques of transplant surgeons with vs. without robotic experience, as shown in the video, can be used to mentor trainee surgeons in the laboratory before patient proctoring, thereby ensuring patient safety. Table 1. Measures of surgical process and perioperative outcomes for extensive robotic vs minimal robotic orientation group. Group 1 Group 2 p-value Measures of surgical process Operative time: Incision-closure (min), mean (SD) [range] 211.8 (40.7) [156-293] 305.7 (38.8) [250-385] <0.001 Re-warming time (with Ice-slush) (min), mean (SD) [range] 45.9 (9.4) [27-66] 70.8 (15.3) [48-92] <0.001 Vascular anastomoses times Arterial anastomosis (min), mean (SD) [range] 11.7 (2.5) [7-16] 22.6 (7.9) [14-46] <0.001 Venous anastomosis (min), mean (SD) [range] 13.3 (3.7) [8-21] 18.4 (6.4) [11-30] 0.01 Uretero-vesical anastomosis time (min), mean (SD) [range] 15.7 (4.3) [11-27] 42.2 (11.3) [23-65] <0.001 Functional patient outcomes Serum creatinine POD 7 (mg/dl), mean (SD) [range] 1.4 (0.6) [0.7-3.1] 1.5 (1.0) [0.7-4.8] 0.63 Estimated glomerular filtration rate POD 7 (ml/min)ˆ , mean (SD) [range] 70.3 (32.1) [24.5-150.4] 61.9 (29.0) [12.3-127.6] 0.69 ˆ Using Modified Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation for > 18 years old and Schwartz equation for < 18 years old; POD = Post-operative day Table 2. Multivariable linear regression analysis: extensive robotic vs minimal robotic surgery experience as predictor of perioperative outcomes Correlation-coefficient (CI) p-value Measures of surgical process Re-warming time (with Ice-slush) -28.5 (-40.7 to -16.4) <0.001 Vascular anastomoses times Arterial anastomosis -5.1 (-8.6 to -1.5) 0.006 Venous anastomosis -10.9 (-14.8 to -7.1) <0.001 Uretero-vesical anastomosis -26.5 (-32.1 to -20.8) <0.001 Functional patient outcomes Serum creatinine POD 7 -0.3 (-1.1 to 0.5) 0.78 Estimated glomerular filtration rateˆ 8.4 (-13.5 to 30.3) 0.44 ˆ Using Modified Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation for > 18 years old and Schwartz equation for < 18 years old; POD = Post-operative day © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e736-e737 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Mahendra Bhandari More articles by this author Deepansh Dalela More articles by this author Akshay Sood More articles by this author Rajesh Ahlawat More articles by this author Pranjal Modi More articles by this author Ronney Abaza More articles by this author Mani Menon More articles by this author Khurshid Ghani More articles by this author Wooju Jeong More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract