Impact of robotic training on surgical and pathologic outcomes during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare outcomes during robotic prostatectomy between surgeons with formal training in either robotic prostatectomy (RALP) or laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP). METHODS: A total of 286 robotic prostatectomies were performed by 12 urologists between August 2008 and March 2009 as part of a new robotic surgery program at one of the largest health maintenance organizations in the United States. Four surgeons had formal training in RALP and 8 had formal training in LRP. We prospectively compared surgical and pathologic outcomes between these 2 groups of surgeons. RESULTS: The 4 RALP surgeons performed 121 RALPs and the 8 LRP surgeons performed 165 RALPs. Patient demographics were similar between groups. The robot-naive group had significantly more clinical stage T1c than the robot-trained group (87.9% vs 74.4%, P = .003). Prostatectomy parameters were similar between the 2 groups of surgeons in terms of prostate size, Gleason score, pathologic stage, and estimated blood loss. The robot-trained surgeons had significantly lower overall positive margin rates (24% vs 34.6%, P = .05) and lower margin rates in T3 tumors (38.5% vs 61.8%, P = .07), which were approximately statistically significant. There was no difference in margin rates in T2 tumors. The robot-trained surgeons had significantly lower apical margin rates (8.3% vs 21.2%, P = .003) and lateral margin rates (1.7% vs 7.3%, P = .05). The robot-trained surgeons had 10%-15% shorter procedure times. There was no difference in complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Formal RALP training may be beneficial for surgical and pathologic outcomes of RALP compared with formal LRP training during the initial implementation of a new robotics program.

Rapid implementation of a robot-assisted prostatectomy program in a large health maintenance organization setting.

PURPOSE: We present the rapid implementation of a robot-assisted surgery program by one of the largest health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A core group of 10 urologists were offered access to a new da Vinci S surgical system. A core group of five ancillary staff was assembled and trained at an Intuitive Surgical-designated training site. An experienced robotic surgeon acted as a proctor. Data regarding patient demographics, preoperative parameters, operative times, pathologic outcomes, and EPIC-26 quality-of-life questionnaires were collected prospectively and reviewed. All procedures were recorded on digital video disc as part of a quality assurance protocol. The core group reviewed complications monthly and received feedback on surgical techniques and pathologic outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 100 robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed from August to October 2008. The patient demographics, preoperative parameters, operative times, and pathologic outcomes of these first 100 procedures are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the rapid implementation of an efficient multisurgeon HMO-based robot-assisted prostatectomy program with promising initial outcomes.