Surgeon Performance Predicts Early Continence after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 31, Issue 9, 2017, Pages 858-863

  Goldenberg, Mitchell G ^a,b   Goldenberg, Larry ^c   Grantcharov, Teodor P ^b  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

medical errors; prostatectomy; psychomotor performance; robotic surgical procedures; urinary incontinence

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ANASTOMOSIS; ARTICLE; BLADDER FUNCTION; BLADDER NECK; BODY MASS; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTINENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL PROSTATE SYMPTOM SCORE; LEARNING CURVE; MALE; MEDICAL ERROR; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROSTATE WEIGHT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOT-ASSISTED PROSTATECTOMY; SURGEON; URINE INCONTINENCE; AGED; BLADDER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; UROLOGIST;

AGED; BODY MASS INDEX; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HUMANS; LEARNING CURVE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SURGEONS; URINARY BLADDER; URINARY INCONTINENCE; UROLOGISTS;

EID: 85038625541     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0284     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O'Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1434-1442.
2. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009;360:491-499.
3. Bhindi B, Yu J, Kuk C, et al. The importance of surgeon characteristics on impacting oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing radical cystectomy. J Urol 2014;192: 714-720.
4. Zevin B, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP. Volume-outcome association in bariatric surgery. Ann Surg 2012;256:60-71.
5. Trinh Q-D, Bjartell A, Freedland SJ, et al. A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;64:786-798.
6. Stitzenberg KB, Wong Y-N, Nielsen ME, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Trends in radical prostatectomy: Centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care. Cancer 2012; 118:54-62.
7. Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R. direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Single-surgeon experience. Urology 2009;73:119-123.
8. Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: Robotassisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol 2011;60:413-419.
9. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan K-H, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:436-445.
10. Kim JJ, Ha Y-S, Kim JH, et al. Independent predictors of recovery of continence 3 months after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2012;26: 1290-1295.
11. Abraham NE, Makarov DV, Laze J, Stefanovics E, Desai R, Lepor H. Patient centered outcomes in prostate cancer treatment: Predictors of satisfaction up to 2 years after open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2010;184:1977-1981.
12. Vickers A, Savage C, Bianco F, et al. Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy asmarkers of surgical quality: Analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center. Eur Urol 2011;59:317-322.
13. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 2011;185:1191-1197.
14. Walsh PC, Marschke P, Ricker D, Burnett AL. Use of intraoperative video documentation to improve sexual function after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2000;55:62-67.
15. Paterson C, McLuckie S, Yew-Fung C, Tang B, Lang S, Nabi G. Videotaping of surgical procedures and outcomes following extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Surg Oncol 2016;114:1016-1023.
16. Lavigueur-Blouin H, Noriega AC, Valdivieso R, et al. Predictors of early continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:e93-e97.
17. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: Validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 2012;187:247-252.
18. Bonrath EM, Zevin B, Dedy NJ, Grantcharov TP. Error rating tool to identify and analyse technical errors and events in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 2013;100:1080-1088.
19. Ghani KR, Miller DC, Linsell S, et al. Measuring to improve: Peer and crowd-sourced assessments of technical skill with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2016;69:547-550.
20. Messick S. The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. Am Psychol 1975;30:955-966.
21. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 2012;62:368-381.
22. Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S, et al. Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patientrelated variables. Ann Surg 2016;264:482-491.
23. Bonrath EM, Gordon LE, Grantcharov TP. Characterising ''near miss'' events in complex laparoscopic surgery through video analysis. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:516-521.
24. Dimick JB, Varban OA. Surgical video analysis: An emerging tool for improving surgeon performance. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:490-491.
25. Dimick JB, Greenberg CC. Understanding gaps in surgical quality. Ann Surg 2013;257:6-7.
26. Maas MB, Jaff MR, Rordorf GA. Risk adjustment for case mix and the effect of surgeon volume on morbidity. JAMA Surg 2013;148:532-535.
27. Ban KA, Cohen ME, Ko CY, et al. Evaluation of the ProPublica surgeon scorecard ''adjusted complication rate'' measure specifications. Ann Surg 2016;264:566-574.
28. Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ, et al. External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc 2015;29:3261-3262.
29. Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala R. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: A practical guide to Kane's framework. Med Educ 2015;49:560-575.
30. Min H, Morales DR, Orgill D, Smink DS, Yule S. Systematic review of coaching to enhance surgeons' operative performance. Surgery 2015;158:1168-1191.
31. Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Gordon LE, Grantcharov TP. Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room. Ann Surg 2015;262:205-212.
32. Szasz P, Louridas M, Harris KA, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP. Assessing technical competence in surgical trainees: A systematic review. Ann Surg 2014;261:1-1055.