Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: learning curve with a mentor training program

IntroductionWe describe and evaluate the results of our mentor training program for laparoscopic radical Prostatectomy (LRP).Material and MethodsFrom March 2004 through December 2005, we have performed 105 (LRP). Three groups have been analysed: Group 1: The mentor as the first surgeon with the trainee acting as the assistant. Group 2: The trainee as the first surgeon with the mentor acting as the assistant. Group 3: The trainee as the first surgeon with another trainee/resident as the assistant. We have evaluated operative, postoperative data and surgical/oncological control.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in mean operative time in Groups 2 and 3 (200’-198’), but there was a difference from Group 1 (148,4’) (p<0,05) we have observed a progressive operative time decrease only in Group 1. Blood loss, surgical-oncological control, pathological stage and hospital stay have been similar in the three groups.ConclusionsSkills for LRP can be effectively and safely taught by the presence of an experienced mentor. Waiting for long term results according to potency and continence, it was not associated to higher patient risk, neither to a worse surgical/oncologic outcome. We consider that this program is reproducible and allows a shorter learning curve.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the learning curve

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is now an accepted treatment option for the management of localized prostate cancer. Numerous studies have demonstrated the feasibility and the reproducibility of this procedure. Expert teams in high-volume centres routinely carry out laparoscopic radical prostatectomy but for the novice the obstacle to success is how to learn and gain proficiency in this procedure. In this review, we will present our views on how this can be done. RECENT FINDINGS: A learning curve includes the necessity for continuous self-evaluation in terms of cancer control, continence and potency. Many different methods can be used to acquire the technique: dry lab, animal live lab, cadaveric laparoscopic dissection or mentoring with an expert. All of these steps may not be essential as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is not too dissimilar to open prostatectomy. However, one must understand that the physiological consequences of anaesthesia during laparoscopy and basic laparoscopic suturing technique should be perfected prior to taking on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The training then must continue under the supervision of a mentor. The opportunity for discussion with an expert allows the novice to learn the pitfalls and the tips and tricks of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, thus reducing the length of the learning curve and negating the need to reinvent the wheel. SUMMARY: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is similar to any other new surgical procedure and as with open surgery we learn and gain experience with each procedure; the learning curve is never completely finished.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: prospective evaluation of the learning curve

OBJECTIVE: We prospectively evaluated the learning curve (LC) of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (L-RPE) regarding the improvements in operative times (OT) and technical difficulty in one-operator-practice as it compares with open RPE. METHODS: Over 18 months, 50 L-RPE were performed by an inexperienced surgeon in laparoscopy but skilled in open surgery. Difficulty scores were obtained at the completion of each L-RPE comparing L-RPE to open RPE. OT, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and catheterization time were also obtained. RESULTS: In the ablative part of L-RPE the median difficulty score was significantly higher (p<0.001) for the first 10 cases, decreased dramatically by case 11 becoming equivalent (p=0.3) to open RPE and by case 31 the L-RPE becomes significantly easier than open RPE (p=0.002). The difficulty scores for the urethrovesical anastomosis performance is always uniformly higher for the whole patient series (p<0.001). Median OT decreased significantly from 293 minutes in the first 10 cases to 114 minutes in the last 10 cases (p<0.001). Catheterization time and length of hospitalization, decreased significantly with the progression of the LC. EBL remained stable throughout the patient cases. Obesity, prior surgery, and extension of the procedure (lymphadenectomy, nerve-sparing) significantly increased the OT. CONCLUSION: Although the ablative part of L-RPE has a relatively short LC for a skilled open surgeon reflected by the rapid decrease in difficulty scores and OT by case 21, the performance of anastomosis shows a longer LC. Intensive training on anastomosis may be necessary to master this skill.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: decreasing the learning curve using a mentor initiated approach

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is being evaluated at several centers in the United States as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. It is a technically difficult operation to perform with a steep learning curve. It has been stated that 50 procedures are necessary to satisfy the learning curve. To expedite performance and evaluation of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy a surgeon (mentor) who had performed 200 cases was invited to instruct a fellowship trained laparoscopist (trainee). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2001 through September 2001 we performed 30 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. The mentor performed the first 12 procedures with the trainee acting as assistant (group 1). The subsequent 18 procedures were performed by the trainee with the mentor acting as assistant (group 2). A final set of 20 procedures was performed by the trainee alone using 1 of 3 urological residents as the assistant (group 3). The transperitoneal approach was used and all suturing was intracorporeal. Preoperative data included prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, Gleason grade and median patient age. Intraoperative data included operative time, the blood loss/transfusion rate and intraoperative complications. Postoperative data included pathological stage, prostate specific antigen, the positive margin rate, catheter dwell time and hospital stay. When applicable, statistical significance was determined using the standard paired t test. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in median operative time in groups 1 and 2 (248 and 258 minutes, respectively, p = 0.15). Similarly there was no difference in groups 2 (trainee and mentor assistant) and 3 (trainee alone) (p = 0.26). There was a difference in operative time in groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.04). Mean estimated blood loss was comparable in groups 1 to 3 and not statistically different (150, 250 and 250 cc, respectively, p = 0.15). Mean organ weight was also comparable (64, 59 and 55 gm., respectively). Hospital stay was 3 days in all groups. Catheter time decreased as confidence was gained with the procedure (range 6 to 33 days). Final pathological stage was compared among the 3 groups. There was an overall increase in positive margins in groups 1 to 3 (16%, 22% and 30%, respectively, p not significant). However, the positive margin rate for stage pT2 disease was similar at 15.5% for groups 1 and 2, and 14% for group 3. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a technically challenging operation that is in the early stages of evolution and evaluation. We present an intensive, mentor initiated approach to decrease the learning curve and maintain outcomes.     

Robotic radical prostatectomy: overview of our learning curve

ObjectiveWe present the first cases of our robotic radical prostatectomy with Da Vinci (RRPdaV) that corresponds to the learning curve (LC) of the surgeon that has initiated with this technique.MethodsWe reviewed the first 20 patients that underwent RRPdaV, performed by an expert surgeon, without previous laparoscopic training, but with a wide experience in retropubic and perineal prostatectomy (HV). We analyzed: Surgical time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra and postoperative complications, hospital stay and days of bladder catheterization. Also: rates and location of surgical margins, as well as functional outcomes with an average follow up of 10 months.ResultsMean operating time was 140 minutes (100-211) and blood loss 180 mL (80-360), and none required a blood transfusion. There were no intraoperative complications and neither any conversion to open surgery. The only postoperative outstanding fact was mean hospital stay were 3,35 days. (3-5). We had 6 cases of positive surgical margins (30%). The most frequent location was postero-lateral. Eighteen out of 20 patients (90%) were early totally continent, 2 (10%) required the use of one pad during the first six months due slight stress incontinence that stopped spontaneously. From 20 cases, two of them (10%) had preoperative erectile dysfunction; 12 out of the remaining 18 (66.6%) preserved potency at review and 6 (33.4%) had postoperative erectile dysfunction.ConclusionsIt has been demonstrated that robotic surgery for radical prostatectomy is clearly an advantage technique (easy maneuver although it is a minimally invasive technique, comfortable and ergonomic position for the surgeon, 3D visualization and short learning curve). The RRPDAv learning curve is significantly shorter if the surgeon has a wide previous surgical experience in open and/or laparoscopic surgery.     

Extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-center experience beyond the learning curve

Objectives

To report our surgical technique and outcomes after extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP).

Materials and methods

At Henri Mondor’s Hospital, we performed the first RALRP in 2001 and started to perform routinely RALRP since 2006. Preoperative characteristics, perioperative parameters, functional and oncological outcomes were collected in a prospective database and studied. All parameters were tested in patients undergoing RALRP beyond the learning curve of each surgeon. The overall cohort included 792 patients.

Results

RALRP offers interesting results in terms of hospital stay, operative time, and blood loss. The overall rate of complications was low, especially concerning the rates of anastomosis’ complications. An extraprostatic extension was seen in 42.8 % of specimens. The overall rate of positive margins was 30.7 % of specimens. In our cohort, after a mean follow-up of 19 months, 8.7 % of PSA failure has been reported. The rate of continence was 77.4 % at 6 months and 96.8 % at 2 years. The rate of potency was 17 % at 3 months and 60.9 % at 2 years. The 2-year rate was 86.7 % in case of intrafascial dissection. A trifecta outcome was achieved in 44 and 53 % of men at 12 and 24 months, respectively.

Conclusions

The extraperitoneal approach confers interesting results in terms of perioperative parameters as previously described in series using a transperitoneal approach. Functional outcomes in terms of continence and potency recovery after extraperitoneal seem equivalent to those reported after transperitoneal RALRP. Longer follow-up is warranted to confirm our favorable mid-term oncologic outcomes.     

The impact of hospital volume,residency, and fellowship training on perioperative outcomes after radical prostatectomy

ObjectivesAlthough high-volume hospitals have been associated with improved outcomes for radical prostatectomy (RP), the association of residency or fellowship teaching institutions or both and this volume-outcome relationship remains poorly described. We examine the effect of teaching status and hospital volume on perioperative RP outcomes.Methods and materialsWithin the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we focused on RPs performed between 2003 and 2007. We tested the rates of prolonged length of stay beyond the median of 3 days, in-hospital mortality, and intraoperative and postoperative complications, stratified according to teaching status. Multivariable logistic regression analyses further adjusted for confounding factors.ResultsOverall, 47,100 eligible RPs were identified. Of these, 19,193 cases were performed at non-teaching institutions, 24,006 at residency teaching institutions, and 3,901 at fellowship teaching institutions. Relative to patients treated at non-teaching institutions, patients treated at fellowship teaching institutions were healthier and more likely to hold private insurance. In multivariable analyses, patients treated at residency (OR = 0.92, P = 0.015) and fellowship (OR = 0.82, P = 0.011) teaching institutions were less likely to experience a postoperative complication than patients treated at non-teaching institutions. Patients treated at residency (OR = 0.73, P<0.001) and fellowship (OR = 0.91, P = 0.045) teaching institutions were less likely to experience a prolonged length of stay.ConclusionsMore favorable postoperative complication profile and shorter length of stay should be expected at residency and fellowship teaching institutions following RP. Moreover, postoperative complication rates were lower at fellowship teaching than at residency teaching institutions, despite adjustment for potential confounders.     

Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve

PURPOSE: We assessed the incidence of and analyzed factors that contributed to perioperative complications in patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy, that is Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy (VIP), at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recorded operative and postoperative data on 300 consecutive patients who underwent VIP at our institution during a 1-year period. All operations were performed by 1 of 2 surgeons (MM or JOP). We reviewed the complications seen in these patients. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality and no case was converted to open surgery. A total of 269 (89.7%) patients were considered to have an ideal postoperative course, ie they were discharged home within 48 hours with no unscheduled office visits or complications. There were 14 unscheduled postoperative visits (4.7%) for transient urinary retention after early catheter removal (13) or hematuria (1). There were 17 complications, of which 16 (5.3%) were related to surgery and 1 was related to anesthesia. A total of 11 complications (3.7%) were minor (grade I) and 5 (1.7%) were major (grade II). Of them 3 (1%) patients required reoperation. There were no grade III or IV complications. CONCLUSIONS: In our hands VIP is a safe operation with an overall complication rate of 5.3%, a major complication rate of less than 2% and a surgical re-intervention rate of 1%.     

Analysis of the pentafecta learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Purpose

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has a long learning curve; however, little is known about the pentafecta learning curve for LRP. We analysed the learning curve for a fellowship trained surgeon with regard to the pentafecta with up to 6-year follow-up.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed in 550 cases, by dividing these cases into 11 groups of 50 patients. Outcomes analysed were the following: (1) the pentafecta (complication rate, positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, continence, potency and biochemical recurrence); (2) operative time and blood loss; and (3) overall pentafecta attainment.

Results

The mean complication rate for the entire series was 9 %; this plateaued after 150 cases. The overall PSM rate for the series was 23.5 %, 16.3 % for pT2 and 40.5 % for pT3. PSM plateaued after 200 cases. Excluding the first 100 cases, the overall PSM rate for pT2 was 10.9 % and 37.8 % for pT3. The continence rate stabilised after approximately 250 cases. The rate of male sling/artificial urinary sphincter plateaued after 200 cases. The potency learning curve continues to improve after 250 cases of nerve-sparing (ns) endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) as does the pentafecta learning curve which closely follows the pattern of the potency learning curve. The last group of nsEERPE achieved pentafecta in 63 %.

Conclusion

This study shows multiple learning curves: an initial for peri-operative outcomes, then stabilisation of oncologic outcomes and the final for stabilisation of functional outcomes. In this series over 250 cases were required to achieve the learning curve.     

Overcoming the steep learning curve of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of intensive laparoscopic skills training and self-critical video review on the learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The initial 40 patients who underwent a transperitoneal LRP (groups 1-4) and the subsequent 20 who underwent LRP by the extraperitoneal approach (group 5) were studied. Eight weeks prior to initiating the LRP program, intensive laparoscopic skills training at a minimally invasive surgery center was undertaken for an average of 4 hours per week. This self-training was continued for 12 weeks into the program, with self-critical review of videotapes of each procedure. The groups were compared with respect to total operative time (ORT), anastomosis time, and blood loss. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the ORT and anastomosis times between each of the first two groups and the last two groups (P <0.001). The learning curve for ORT was overcome after approximately 35 cases, as there were no significant differences in ORT between group 3 and the subsequent groups. The anastomosis took longer to master, as significant time decreases were observed up to group 4, after which, the mean reached a plateau (group 4 v 5 P = NS). The differences in blood loss were not significant. Overall, there were 7 intraoperative (12.7%) and 8 postoperative (14.5%) complications. CONCLUSIONS: The use of similar facilities and training tools can help overcome the steep learning curve of LRP. Longer follow-up is needed to assess these means of attaining better functional results after LRP.     

Experience with potency preservation during radical prostatectomy: Significance of learning curve

Potency preservation after radical prostatectomy is relatively new. The efficacy of this procedure has not been widely documented. Twenty-four patients with full potency underwent nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. A total of 12 patients retained potency after surgery. Analysis of data reveals there is a learning curve in doing this procedure, and once the initial learning phase is over good results can be obtained in a select group of patients.     

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: critical analysis of outcomes and learning curve

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes and learning curve of extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy (EERP) using cumulative summation charts from a single tertiary referral centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The data from 300 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer who underwent EERP at Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK, between February 2006 and July 2009 were prospectively maintained in a database. The data collected included demographic details, perioperative outcomes, complications and follow‐up for functional and oncology outcomes. The learning curve was analysed using generalized linear models for complication rate, operative time and blood loss, using procedure experience.

RESULTS

The mean (sd , range) operative duration was 160.52 (40.84, 100–310) min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 229.3 (172, 20–1000) mL. There was no conversion to open surgery and no patient required intraoperative blood transfusion. Only one of 250 (0.3%) patients required a blood transfusion after EERP. The median (range) hospital stay was 3 (2–20) days and the median catheterization time before cystography was 9 days. There was evidence that the complication rate reduced as experience was gained (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.97–0.99; P= 0.002), with the estimated probability of a complication decreasing from 29% for the first to <1% for the 250th procedure. Also there was evidence of a decrease in operative duration (?0.0020 rate parameter on log scale; 95% CI ?0.0024 to ?0.0017; P < 0.001) and blood loss (?0.01 rate parameter on log scale; 95% CI ?0.003 to ?0.0002; P= 0.021). The positive surgical margin rate in pT2 disease decreased from 27% in the first 50 to 14.7% in the last 50 operated cases. The continence rate and biochemical recurrence‐free rate at a minimum follow‐up of 1 year for the first 100 patients was 89% and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results from this series suggest that the benefits of minimally invasive surgery for localized prostate cancer (EERP) can be replicated after mentored fellowship training of a surgeon. The complication rate reduced substantially as experience was gained, suggesting a continuous surgical learning curve     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: introduction of training during our first 50 cases

Background: The study aims to assess the initial experience of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in a regional centre in Australia which includes Fellowship training during our first 50 cases. Methods: Data were collected prospectively from our first 50 consecutive patients who underwent LRP for localized prostate cancer between September 2009 and October 2010. All cases were performed or supervised by the primary surgeon. Patient details, operative details, complications, early oncological and functional outcomes were analysed. Results: The median age was 65 (45–76) years and median preoperative prostate‐specific antigen was 7.5 (2.5–23) ng/mL, with palpable disease present in 48%. Using D'Amico's risk stratification, 14%, 74% and 12% were in low, intermediate and high‐risk categories, respectively. Forty percent of cases were training cases with a median of 5 (2–8) of 10 operative steps performed by the Fellow. There was one open conversion and no rectal injuries. Mean operative time was 288 (175–440) min and with blood transfusion rate of 6%. Mean length of stay was 2.5 (1–6) days. Positive surgical margin rates for pT2 and pT3 disease were 14% and 52%, respectively, although for the last 25 cases they were 7% and 30%, respectively. Continence rate was 86% at 6 months, and 45% and 33% of preoperatively potent patients were potent after bilateral and unilateral nerve preservation at 6 months. Conclusion: LRP has been safely introduced in a regional centre with establishment of a Fellowship training programme, with early results comparable with other open, laparoscopic and robotic series.     

Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases

PURPOSE: The introduction of robotic assistance has the potential to improve surgical outcomes and reduce the steep learning curve associated with conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We report on our experience with robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients underwent robotic radical prostatectomy during 18 months. Prospective data collection included a quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaire, basic demographics, prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage and Gleason grade. Operative outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss and complications. Postoperative outcome measures included hospital stay, catheter time, pathology, PSA and return of continence. RESULTS: Average operative time was 141 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 75 cc. The intraoperative complication rate was 1% with no mortality, reexploration or transfusion. Of the patients 95% were discharged home on postoperative day 1 (1 to 3) with hematocrit averaging 34.5 (range 25 to 45). The average difference in preoperative and postoperative hematocrit was 3 points (range -2 to 15). Average catheter time was 7.2 days (range 5 to 15). The positive margin rate was 10.5% for the entire series, 5.7% for T2 tumors, 28.5% (T3a), 20% (T3b) and 33% (T4a). Of the patients 95% had undetectable PSA (less than 0.1 ng/ml) at average followup of 9.7 months. Continence at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months was 47%, 78%, 89%, 92% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy is promising. The learning curve was approximately 20 to 25 cases. With a structured methodical approach we were able to implement robotics safely and effectively into our community practice with minimal patient morbidity, and good oncological and functional outcomes.