Impact of laparoscopic experience on the proficiency gain of urologic surgeons in robot-assisted surgery

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1635-1638

  Teishima, Jun ^a   Hattori, Minoru ^a   Inoue, Shogo ^a   Ikeda, Kenichiro ^a   Hieda, Keisuke ^a   Miyamoto, Katsutoshi ^a   Shoji, Koichi ^a   Hayashi, Tetsutaro ^a   Kobayashi, Kanao ^a   Kajiwara, Mitsuru ^a   Egi, Hiroyuki ^a   Ohdan, Hideki ^a   Matsubara, Akio ^a  

^a HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROBOTICS; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGEON; SURGICAL SPONGE; SURGICAL TRAINING; UROLOGIC SURGERY;

ADULT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIANS; ROBOTICS; SUTURES; UROLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84871255803     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0308     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Jacobsen NE, Moore KN, Estey E, et al. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective comparison of postoperative urinary incontinence rate. J Urol 2007;177: 615-619. (Pubitemid 46054045)
2. Salmon L, Sebe P, De La Taille A, et al. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Part II. BJU Int 2004;94: 244-250.
3. Stephenson AJ, Gill S. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Pathological and oncological outcomes. BJU Int 2008;102:1296-1301.
4. Irwin BH, Gill IS, Haber GP, et al. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy: Current status, outcomes, and patient selection. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2009;10:243-255.
5. Richards KA, Kader K, Pettus JA, et al. Does initial learning curve compromise outcomes for robot-assisted radical cystectomy? A critical evaluation of the first 60 cases while establishing a robotics program. J Endourol 2011;25:1553-1558.
6. Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, et al. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology 2011;78:813-819.
7. Artibani W, Fracalanza S, Cavalleri S, et al. Learning curve and preliminary experience with da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Int 2008;80:237-244. (Pubitemid 351693070)
8. Guru KA, Perlmutter AE, Butt ZM, et al. The learning curve for robot-assisted radical cystectomy. JSLS 2009;13:509-514.
9. Lerner MA, Ayalew M, Peine WJ, et al. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol 2010;24:467-472.
10. Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, et al. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robot-assisted surgery. Urology 2009;73:1288-1292.
11. Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y, et al. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 2009;23:503-508.
12. Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA, et al. Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for Robot-assisted surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology 2011;78:1326-1330.
13. Matsuda T, Ono Y, Terachi T, et al. The endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in urological laparoscopy: A novel system in Japan. J Urol 2006;176:2168-2172. (Pubitemid 44633157)
14. Habuchi T, Terachi T, Mimata H, et al. Evaluation of 2,590 urological laparoscopic surgeries undertaken by urological surgeons accredited by an endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in urological laparoscopy in Japan. Surg Endosc 2012;26:1656-1663.
15. Delp SL, Loan JP, HoyMG, et al.An interactive graphics-based model of the lower extremety to study orthopaedic surgical procedures. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1990;37:757-767. (Pubitemid 20324141)
16. Kuehnapfel UG, Neisius B. CAD-based graphical computer simulation in endoscopic surgery. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 1993;1:181-184.
17. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Pathil MB, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robot-assisted surgery simulator. J Urol 2011;186:1019-1024.
18. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 2011;107:1130-1135.
19. Vlaovic PD, Sargent ER, Boker JR, et al. Robotic suturing on the FLS model processes contrast validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2141-2146.
20. Lin DW, Romanell JR, Kuhn JN, et al. Computer-based laparoscopic and robotic surgical simulators: Characteristics and perceptions of new users. Surg Endosc 2009;23:209-214.
21. Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 2010;147:830-839.
22. Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Soper NJ, et al. The effect of robotic assistance on learning curves for basic laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2002;183:702-707. (Pubitemid 34722541)
23. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, et al. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: Is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002;60:39-45. (Pubitemid 34722942)
24. Andreatta PB, Hillard M, Krain LP. The impact of stress factors in simulation-based laparoscopic training. Surgery 2010;147:631-639.
25. Arora S, Hull L, Sevdallis N, et al. The impact of stress on surgical performance: A systematic review of literature. Surgery 2010;147:318-330.
26. Arora S, Aqqarwal R, Sirimanna P, et al. Mental practice enhances surgical technical skills. A randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 2011;253:265-270.
27. Arora S, Aqqarwal R, Moran A, et al. Mental practice: Effective stress management training for novice surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:225-233.
28. Wanzel KR, Hamstra SJ, Anastakis DJ, et al. Effect of visualspatial ability on learning of spatially-complex surgical skills. Lancet 2002;359:230-231. (Pubitemid 34113824)