ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To develop and content validate a percutaneous nephrolithotomy assessment score, taking into consideration the procedure-specific risks. METHODS: This prospective international study utilized the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis to systematically outline percutaneous nephrolithotomy and failure modes for each step. A total of 25 h was spent observing percutaneous nephrolithotomy carried out by six expert surgeons. Hazard analysis scoring was carried out by 11 experts. It was determined if the steps were single point weaknesses. Single point weaknesses and those assigned a hazard score ≥4 were included in the percutaneous nephrolithotomy assessment score. The tool was then content validated by 16 experts from 10 countries. RESULTS: Application of the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis identified 64 failure modes; 37 failure modes had a hazard score ≥4. After adaptations based on expert feedback the final percutaneous nephrolithotomy assessment score was developed containing 10 phases, 21 processes and 47 subprocesses. All participants agreed that the tool contained pertinent procedural steps. CONCLUSIONS: This study has developed and shown the international content validity of a novel percutaneous nephrolithotomy assessment score. The tool can be utilized in modular operating room training to quantify operator progress, and can be used in conjunction with other modules as part of a complete percutaneous nephrolithotomy curriculum for trainees.
Subject(s)
Kidney Calculi , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous , Curriculum , Humans , Kidney Calculi/diagnosis , Kidney Calculi/surgery , Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous/adverse effects , Operating Rooms , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Procedures for urolithiasis are a core part of the development for the urologist in training. Understanding the learning curve of the procedures is important, allowing for planning in the training and assessment of trainees. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature pertaining to learning curves in urolithiasis surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was registered on the PROSPERO database and conducted in keeping with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were systematically searched from inception to January 2018, with a reference review conducted. All empirical studies on learning curves in urolithiasis surgery were included irrespective of procedure. Articles describing pediatric surgery, nontechnical skills in surgery, or those not written in English were excluded. RESULTS: Of 390 articles identified from screening, a final 18 studies were included. Fourteen studies identified the learning curve in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. These studies identified a learning curve of between 30 and 60 cases for both operative time (OT) and complication rates. Four articles focused on flexible ureteroscopy (FURS); the learning curve for FURS has been outlined as 60 cases for OT and 56 cases for fragmentation efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The complexities of determining learning curves are extensive; studies use different parameters to measure outcomes and observe skill acquisition rates of surgeons with differing prior experience. Evidence in this article can guide trainee urologists with regard to the expected rate of progress. Multi-operator multicenter research utilizing standard outcome measures should be conducted to establish definitive learning curves.