RESUMO
Background: The Hugo™ Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) system is a new cutting-edge robotic platform designed for clinical applications. Nevertheless, its application for cystic renal tumors has not yet been thoroughly investigated. In this context, we present an initial series of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) procedures carried out using the Hugo™ RAS system for cystic renal masses. Methods: Between October 2022 and January 2024, twenty-seven RAPN procedures for renal tumors were performed at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico. Our prospective board-approved dataset was queried for "cystic features" (n = 12). Perioperative data were collected. The eGFR was calculated according to the CKD-EPI formula. Post-operative complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Computed tomography (CT) scans for follow-up were performed according to the EAU guidelines. Trifecta was defined as the coexistence of negative surgical margin status, no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications, and eGFR decline ≤ 30%. Results: All the patients successfully underwent RAPN without the need for conversion or additional port placement. The median docking and console time were 5.5 (IQR, 4-6) and 79.5 min (IQR, 58-91 min), respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred, as well as clashes between instruments or with the bedside assistant. Two minor postoperative complications were recorded (Clavien-Dindo II). At discharge, serum creatinine and eGFR were comparable to preoperative values. Only one patient (8.4%) displayed positive surgical margins. The rate of trifecta achievement was 91.7%. Conclusions: RAPN for cystic renal masses using the novel Hugo™ RAS system can be safely and effectively performed. This robotic system provided satisfactory peri-operative outcomes, preserving renal function and displaying low postoperative complications and a high trifecta rate achievement.
RESUMO
AIM: We carried out an audit to verify compliance to Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), as we have become aware that compliance across different teams and by individual surgeons has not been optimal. MATERIAL OF STUDY: 100 SSC records from October-December 2014 and 100 from March-June 2015 were inspected to verify correct . 44 surgeons and 34 scrub nurses were asked to complete a questionnaire to know surgeons' compliance to the different stages of the Checklist and the compliance of each surgical team. 100% of scrub nurse and 73.7% of surgeons completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: All Checklist records were correctly filled out but we could verify that while nurses have a strong commitment to the SSC, the Checklist's implementation is not being actively supported by all surgical team members. DISCUSSION: Many surgeons showed limited awareness of not collaborating during SSC procedure and admitted delegating the responsibility for answering questions to other members of their team. A number of them fell into contradiction answering to various parts of the questionnaire. Consistent with the literature, at our hospital there is a gap between quality of Checklist paper records and correct use of this safety tool. CONCLUSIONS: Thanks to the data we have collected we will improve the way the SSC is used and promote change in the behavior of surgeons. Eighteen surgeons (40.9%) expressed willingness to be involved in a work group to revise the SSC and we hope that their commitment to safety and quality will increase. KEY WORDS: Surgical Safety Checklist, Surgeons commitment.
