Urology robotic journey: demonstrating the learning curve in robot-assisted pyeloplasties (RALP)

The advantages of robot-assisted pyeloplasties (RALP) have been widely documented and increasingly familiar. A ‘learning curve’ (LC) is difficult to define and its objective review remains problematic. We aimed to evaluate the LC, and outcomes, of RALP performed at our newly established robotic centre. After the appropriate training, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) commenced at our centre. A prospective database was maintained regarding demographics and intra-operative timings of all cases, post-operative stay and complications. The data were statistically interrogated and linear regression analysis was performed. Between April 2014 and September 2018, 29 urological RAS were performed including 23 RALP. The total operating and total console times were significantly decreased over time, with no significant differences seen in length of stay or complication rates. Regression analysis predicted achievement of open pyeloplasty time (148 min) at 26 cases and ‘expert’ console time (58 min) by case 34. Median length of stay was 2 days and operative success rate 96%. RAS is proliferating across the globe. LC is difficult to define objectively. We suggest that the points described here in this ‘learning journey’ can be applied to other nascent departments and that RALP is safe and feasible within a developing urology unit.

[1]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[2]  M. Orvieto,et al.  Setting up a pediatric robotic urology program: A USA institution experience , 2018, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[3]  R. Kapoor,et al.  Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients: The SGPGI experience , 2010, Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India.

[4]  I. Mushtaq,et al.  Current status of robotic surgery in pediatric urology , 2008, Pediatric Surgery International.

[5]  J. Joseph,et al.  Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. , 2009, Surgical oncology.

[6]  S. Hajibandeh,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in the paediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2019, Therapeutic advances in urology.

[7]  Ashwin Sridhar,et al.  Learning Curves for Robotic Surgery: a Review of the Recent Literature , 2017, Current Urology Reports.

[8]  M. Gundeti,et al.  Current Status of Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology. , 2019, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[9]  Pasquale Casale,et al.  Learning curve of robotic assisted pyeloplasty for pediatric urology fellows. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Thomas P. Cundy,et al.  Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and Progressive Scholarly Acceptance analysis , 2018, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[11]  Mathew D. Sorensen,et al.  Comparison of the learning curve and outcomes of robotic assisted pediatric pyeloplasty. , 2011, The Journal of urology.