A decade of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy training: Time-based metrics and qualitative grading for fellows and residents.

OBJECTIVES As modern urology residency and fellowship training in robot-assisted surgery evolves toward standardized curricula (didactics, dry/wet-laboratory exercises, and surgical assistance), additional tools are needed to evaluate on-console performance. At the start of our robotics program in 2006, we set-up a time- and quality-based evaluation program and aim to consolidate this data into a simple set of metrics for self-evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using our index procedure of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), we prospectively collected data on 2,215 cases over 10 years from 6 faculty surgeons and 94 trainees (43 urologic oncology fellows and 51 urology residents). The steps of the operation were divided into 11 consistent steps, and the metrics included time to completion and quality using a 6-level grading system. Time metrics were consolidated into quartiles for benchmarking. RESULTS The median times for trainees to complete each step were 15% to 120% higher than those of the staff (P<0.001). Each step can be presented with quartile-based time metrics by pooled trainee and staff results. Steps performed by trainees were carefully chosen for a high success rate, and on our Likert-like scale were graded 4 to 5 in more than 95% of cases. There were no grade 0 (very poor) cases, and grades 1 (multiple technical errors) and 2 (could not be completed but without safety issues) were rare (<1%). CONCLUSIONS RARP training can be evaluated with a time-based metric that allows a quartile-based comparison to a large experience of trainees and staff. As a trainee progress through a rotation, these benchmarks can assist in prioritizing the need for more attention to a basic step vs. progression to more advanced steps.

[1]  L. Eichel,et al.  Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2006, Urology.

[2]  John W. Davis,et al.  Sequencing robot‐assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection prior to radical prostatectomy: a step‐by‐step guide to exposure and efficiency , 2016, BJU international.

[3]  John W. Davis,et al.  Initial experience of teaching robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons‐in‐training: can training be evaluated and standardized? , 2010, BJU international.

[4]  M. Soloway,et al.  Factors affecting erectile function after radical retropubic prostatectomy: results from 1620 consecutive patients , 2008, BJU international.

[5]  Khurshid A Guru,et al.  Development and Validation of an Objective Scoring Tool for Robot‐Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Prostatectomy Assessment and Competency Evaluation , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[6]  T. Guzzo,et al.  Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. , 2009, Urologic oncology.

[7]  C. Magi-Galluzzi,et al.  Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[8]  John W. Davis,et al.  Robot‐assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP): a video‐based illustration of technique, results, and unmet patient selection needs , 2011, BJU international.

[9]  J. Moul,et al.  Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. , 2008, Urology.

[10]  Anthony Jarc,et al.  Development and Validation of Objective Performance Metrics for Robot‐Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Pilot Study , 2018, The Journal of urology.

[11]  Eric L Eisenstein,et al.  Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[12]  Sutchin R. Patel,et al.  The Role of Cryosurgery of the Prostate for Nonsurgical Candidates , 2013, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[13]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2008, European urology.

[14]  P. Carroll,et al.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[15]  Andrew J. Vickers,et al.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[16]  P. Heathcote,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using modular training programme in a private hospital , 2013, Journal of Robotic Surgery.