Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24917775›Full record

ArticleCurrent urology2013

Developing a robotic prostatectomy service and a robotic fellowship programme - defining the learning curve.

Nikhil Vasdev, Conrad Bishop, Atoine Kass-Iliyya, Sami Hamid, Thomas A McNicholas, Venkat Prasad, Gowrie Mohan-S, Timothy Lane, Gregory Boustead, James M Adshead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nikhil VasdevDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Conrad BishopDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Atoine Kass-IliyyaDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Sami HamidAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Thomas A McNicholasDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Venkat PrasadAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Gowrie Mohan-SAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Timothy LaneDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
Gregory BousteadDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.
James M AdsheadDepartment of UrologyAnaesthetics, Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is an established treatment for prostate cancer in selected centres with appropriate expertise. We studied our single-centre experience of developing a RRP service and subsequent training of 2 additional surgeons by the initial surgeon and the introduction of United Kingdom's first nationally accredited robotic fellowship training programme. We assessed the learning curve of the 3 surgeons with regard to peri-operative outcomes and oncological results. PATIENTS AND

methodsThree hundred consecutive patients underwent RRP between November 2008 and August 2012. Patients were divided into 3 equal groups (Group 1, case 1-100; Group 2, case 101-200; and Group 3, case 201-300). Age, ASA score, preoperative co-morbidities and indications for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were comparable for all 3 patient groups. Peri-operative and oncological outcomes were compared across all 3 groups to assess the impact of the learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. All surgical complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo system.

resultsThe mean age was 60.7 years (range 41-74). There was a significant reduction in the mean console time (p < 0.001), operating time (p < 0.001), mean length of hospital stay (p < 0.001) and duration of catheter (p < 0.001) between the 3 groups as the series progressed. The two most important factors predictive of positive surgical margins (PSM) at RRP were the initial prostate specific antigen (PSA) and tumor stage at diagnosis. The overall PSM rate was 26.7%. For T2/T3 tumors the incidence of PSM reduced as the series progressed (Group 1-22%, Group 2-32% and Group 3-26%). The incidence of major complications i.e. grade Clavien-Dindo system score ≤ III was 2% (6/300).

conclusionRRP is a safe procedure with low morbidity. As surgeons progress through the learning curve peri-operative parameters and oncological outcomes improve. This learning curve is not affected by the introduction of a fellowship-training programme. Using a carefully structured mentored approach, RRP can be safely introduced as a new procedure without compromising patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Fellowship trainingLearning curveProstate cancerRobotic radical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID24917775
PMCPMC4024507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.