RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To develop a scoring tool, Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Appropriateness and Completion Evaluation (PLACE), to assess the intraoperative completeness and appropriateness of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) following robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A panel of 11 open and robotic surgeons developed the content and structure of PLACE. The PLND template was divided into three zones. In all, 21 de-identified videos of bilateral robot-assisted PLNDs were assessed by the 11 experts using PLACE to determine inter-rater reliability. Lymph node (LN) clearance was defined as the proportion of cleared LNs from all PLACE zones. We investigated the correlation between LN clearance and LN count. Then, we compared the LN count of 18 prospective PLNDs using PLACE with our retrospective series performed using the extended template (No PLACE). RESULTS: A significant reliability was achieved for all PLACE zones among the 11 raters for the 21 bilateral PLND videos. The median (interquartile range) for LN clearance was 468 (431-545). There was a significant positive correlation between LN clearance and LN count (R2 = 0.70, P < 0.01). The PLACE group yielded similar LN counts when compared to the No PLACE group. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Appropriateness and Completion Evaluation is a structured intraoperative scoring system that can be used intraoperatively to measure and quantify PLND for quality control and to facilitate training during RARC.
Assuntos
Cistectomia/métodos , Cuidados Intraoperatórios , Excisão de Linfonodo , Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos , Neoplasias da Bexiga Urinária/cirurgia , Adulto , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pelve , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
PURPOSE: Comprehensive training and skill acquisition by urological surgeons are vital to optimize surgical outcomes and patient safety. We sought to develop and validate PACE (Prostatectomy Assessment and Competence Evaluation), an objective and procedure specific tool to assess the quality of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Development and content validation of PACE was performed by deconstructing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy into 7 key domains utilizing the Delphi methodology. Reliability and construct validation were then assessed using de-identified videos performed by practicing surgeons and fellows. Consensus for each domain was defined as achieving a content validity index of 0.75 or greater. Reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation and construct validation using a mixed linear model accounting for multiple ratings on the same video. RESULTS: After 3 rounds consensus was reached on wording, relevance of the skills assessed and concordance between the score assigned and the skill assessed. An intraclass correlation of 0.4 or greater was achieved for all domains. The expert group outperformed trainees in all domains but reached statistical significance in bladder drop (4.5 vs 3.4, p = 0.002), preparation of the prostate (4.4 vs 3.2, p <0.0001), seminal vesicle and posterior plane dissection (8.3 vs 6.8, p = 0.03), and neurovascular bundle preservation (4.1 vs 2.4, p <0.0001). Limitations included the lack of assessment of other key skills such as communication and decision making. CONCLUSIONS: PACE is a structured, procedure specific and reliable tool that objectively measures surgical performance during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. It can differentiate different levels of expertise and provide structured feedback to customize training and surgical quality improvement.