Tag Archive for: laparoscopy

You are here: / laparoscopy

Posts

Here comes the sun

/by

BJUI-on-the-beach

Sun, sea, sand and stones: BJUI on the beach.

Welcome to this month’s BJUI and whether you are relaxing on a sun-drenched beach or villa somewhere having a hard-earned break, or back at your hospital covering for everyone else having their time off, we hope you will enjoy another fantastic issue. After an action packed BAUS meeting with important trial results, innovation, social media and the BJUI fully to the fore, this is a great moment to update yourself on what is hot in urology. This is probably the time of year when most urologists have a little extra time to take the BJUI out of its cover or open up the iPad and dig a little deeper into the articles, and we do not think you will be disappointed with this issue, which certainly has something for everyone.

In the ‘Article of the Month’, we feature an important paper from Egypt [1] examining factors associated with effective delayed primary repair of pelvic fractures that are associated with a urethral injury. Do be careful whilst you are travelling around the world, as most of the injuries in this paper were due to road traffic accidents. They reported 76/86 successful outcomes over a 7-year period. When a range of preoperative variables was assessed, four had particular significance for successful treatment outcomes. The paper really highlights that in the current urological world of robotics, laparoscopy and endourology, in some conditions traditional open surgery with delicate and precise tissue handling and real attention to surgical detail are the key components of a successful outcome.

Whilst you are eating and drinking more than usual over the summer, we have some food for thought on surgery and metabolic syndrome with one of our ‘Articles of the Week’. This paper contains an important message for all those performing bladder outflow surgery. This paper by Gacci et al. [2] from an international group of consecutive patients clearly shows that men with a waist circumference of >102 cm had a far higher risk of persistent symptoms after TURP or open prostatectomy. This was particularly true for storage symptoms in this group of men and should influence the consenting practice of all urologists carrying out this common surgery.

Make sure you drink plenty of Drink HRW to stay well hydrated on your beach this August, as the summer months often lead to increased numbers of patients presenting to emergency departments with acute ureteric colic, so it seems timely to focus on this area.To this end I would like to highlight one of our important ‘Guideline of Guidelines’ series featuring kidney stones [3] to add to the earlier ones on prostate cancer screening [4]and prostate cancer imaging [5]. This series serve to assimilate all of the major national and international guidelines into one easily digestible format with specific reference to the strength of evidence for each recommendation. Specifically, we look at the initial evaluation, diagnostic imaging selection, symptomatic management, surgical treatment, medical therapy, and prevention of recurrence for both ureteric and renal stones. Quite how the recent surprising results of the SUSPEND (Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage ENabled by Drugs) trial will impact on the use of medical expulsive therapy remains to be seen [6].

So whether you are sitting watching the sunset with a drink in your hand or quietly working in your home at night, please dig a little deeper into this month’s BJUI on paper, online or on tablet. It will not disappoint and might just change your future practice.

 

References

1 Koraitim MM, Kamel MI. Perineal repair of pelvic fracture urethral injury: in pursuit of a successful outcome. BJU Int 2015; 116: 265–70

 

2 Gacci M, Sebastianelli A, Salvi M et al. Central obesity is predictive of persistent storage lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) after surgery for benign prostatic enlargement: results of a multicentre prospective study. BJU Int 2015;116:271–7

 

3 Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR. Guideline of guidelines: kidney stones. BJU Int 2015; 116: 184–9

 

4 Loeb S. Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 2014; 114: 323–5

 

5 Wollin DA, Makarov DV. Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer imaging. BJU Int 2015; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13104

 

6 McClinton S, Starr K, Thomas R et al. Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalized adults (SUSPEND), a multicentre, placebo controlled, randomized trial of a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine) and an a-blocker (tamsulosin): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014; 15: 238

 

Ben Challacombe
Associate Editor, BJUI 

 

Article of the Week: Minimum five-year follow-up of 1,138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies

/1 Comment/by

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Ricardo Soares, discussing his paper. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Minimum five-year follow-up of 1,138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies

Ricardo Soares, Antonina Di Benedetto, Zach Dovey, Simon Bott*, Roy G. McGregor† and Christopher G. Eden

 

Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, *Department of Urology, Frimley Park Hospital, Frimley, Surrey, UK, and †Cornwall Regional Hospital, Montego Bay, Jamaica

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVES

To investigate the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 1138 patients underwent LRP during a 163-month period from 2000 to 2008, of which 51.5%, 30.3% and 18.2% were categorised into D’Amico risk groups of low-, intermediate- and high-risk, respectively. All intermediate- and high-risk patients were staged by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography and isotope bone scanning, and had a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), which was extended after April 2008. The median (range) patient age was 62 (40–78) years; body mass index was 26 (19–44) kg/m2; prostate-specific antigen level was 7.0 (1–50) ng/mL and Gleason score was 6 (6–10). Neurovascular bundle was preservation carried out in 55.3% (bilateral 45.5%; unilateral 9.8%) of patients.

RESULTS

The median (range) gland weight was 52 (14–214) g. The median (range) operating time was 177 (78–600) min and PLND was performed in 299 patients (26.3%), of which 54 (18.0%) were extended. The median (range) blood loss was 200 (10–1300) mL, postoperative hospital stay was 3 (2–14) nights and catheterisation time was 14 (1–35) days. The complication rate was 5.2%. The median (range) LN count was 12 (4–26), LN positivity was 0.8% and the median (range) LN involvement was 2 (1–2). There was margin positivity in 13.9% of patients and up-grading in 29.3% and down-grading in 5.3%. While 11.4% of patients had up-staging from T1/2 to T3 and 37.1% had down-staging from T3 to T2. One case (0.09%) was converted to open surgery and six patients were transfused (0.5%). At a mean (range) follow-up of 88.6 (60–120) months, 85.4% of patients were free of biochemical recurrence, 93.8% were continent and 76.6% of previously potent non-diabetic men aged <70 years were potent after bilateral nerve preservation.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term results obtainable from LRP match or exceed those previously published in large contemporary open and robot-assisted surgical series.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: The need for standardised reporting of complications

/by

In the context of diversifying practice models, implementation of new technologies such as the Da Vinci surgical robot and rising healthcare costs, there is growing interest in evaluating the quality of surgical work. This extends into health policy, as reimbursement penalties are introduced for ‘inappropriate’ outcomes (e.g. excessive readmissions). Consequently, there is a significant need to provide an accurate assessment of complications and mortality when reporting on surgical outcomes.

Despite the constant use of outcomes data to measure effectiveness in surgery, no current urology guidelines demand the standardised reporting of surgical complications [1]. As randomised controlled trials are uncommon within the surgical setting, and are associated with significant biases [2], there is a distinct need for a uniform reporting system after urological surgeries. Indeed, the lack of such makes it challenging to compare surgical outcomes between techniques, surgeons and institutions, thus hampering the interpretation of study results [3]. The ongoing (and never-ending) debate on the comparative effectiveness of open vs robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) highlights the need for standardised methods to assess superiority (or inferiority) of surgical results [4].

In this issue of the BJUI, Soares et al. [5] present a single-surgeon study of 1138 laparoscopic RPs (LRPs) with a standardised approach between the years 2000 and 2008, and their 5-year follow-up. Whereas the functional and/or oncological equivalency of LRP compared with open RP has been reported before [6], perhaps the outstanding contribution of this study is the use of the Martin-Donat criteria to report and analyse surgical results [3, 7]. In 2002, Martin et al. [7] introduced a list of 10 standard criteria for accurate and comprehensive reporting of surgical complications (e.g. methods of data acquisition, duration of follow-up, definition of complications, hospital length of stay).

In Table 6 of their manuscript, Soares et al. [5] display surgical and/or oncological outcomes of a total of 17 studies on LRP (including their own data). This table suggests the obvious: there is no consistency of reporting on outcomes. In the 2007 Donat [3] analysis of surgical complications reporting in the urological literature, only 2% of a total of 109 studies met nine to 10 of the critical Martin criteria. Interestingly, these shortcomings have been addressed in more contemporary years as the number of studies complying with most of the Martin criteria has increased between 1999/2000 and 2009/2010 [1]. Yet, despite the increasing use of classification systems for outcomes of surgery and standardised reporting of complications (e.g. Clavien-Dindo classification), they are not routinely applied [1, 8].

In an era where the adoption of a certain surgical approach or technique needs to be carefully weighted against a demand for greater value and decreased costs, a simple case series on positive outcomes is simply not sufficient [9]; at the very least, guideline-compliant assessment of outcomes should be the standard of care.

Read the full article

 

Marianne Schmid*†, Christian P. Meyer*† and Quoc-Dien Trinh*

 

*Division of Urologic Surgery and Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA and† Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

 

References

1 Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Roupret M, Truss M. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 341–9

 

2 Omar MI, Lam TB, Alexander CE et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). BJU Int 2014; 113: 24–35

 

3 Donat SM. Standards for surgical complication reporting in urologic oncology: time for a change. Urology 2007; 69: 221–5

 

4 Schmid M, Gandaglia G, Trinh QD. The controversy that will not go away. Eur Urol 2014; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2014.02.052

 

5 Soares R, Di Benedetto A, Dovey Z, Bott S, McGregor R, Eden C. Minimum 5-year follow-up of 1138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. BJU Int 2014; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/ bju.12887

 

6 Hruza M, Bermejo JL, Flinspach B et al. Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111:  271–80

 

7 Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 2002; 235: 803–13

 

8 Yoon PD, Chalasani V, Woo HH. Use of Clavien-Dindo classification in reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures: analysis of 2010 to 2012. J Urol 2013; 190: 1271–4

 

9 Novara G, Ficarra V, D’Elia C, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Artibani W. Trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011; 107: 100–4

 

Video: 1,138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies – Minimum five-year follow-up

/by

Minimum five-year follow-up of 1,138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies

Ricardo Soares, Antonina Di Benedetto, Zach Dovey, Simon Bott*, Roy G. McGregor† and Christopher G. Eden

 

Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, *Department of Urology, Frimley Park Hospital, Frimley, Surrey, UK, and †Cornwall Regional Hospital, Montego Bay, Jamaica

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVES

To investigate the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 1138 patients underwent LRP during a 163-month period from 2000 to 2008, of which 51.5%, 30.3% and 18.2% were categorised into D’Amico risk groups of low-, intermediate- and high-risk, respectively. All intermediate- and high-risk patients were staged by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography and isotope bone scanning, and had a pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND), which was extended after April 2008. The median (range) patient age was 62 (40–78) years; body mass index was 26 (19–44) kg/m2; prostate-specific antigen level was 7.0 (1–50) ng/mL and Gleason score was 6 (6–10). Neurovascular bundle was preservation carried out in 55.3% (bilateral 45.5%; unilateral 9.8%) of patients.

RESULTS

The median (range) gland weight was 52 (14–214) g. The median (range) operating time was 177 (78–600) min and PLND was performed in 299 patients (26.3%), of which 54 (18.0%) were extended. The median (range) blood loss was 200 (10–1300) mL, postoperative hospital stay was 3 (2–14) nights and catheterisation time was 14 (1–35) days. The complication rate was 5.2%. The median (range) LN count was 12 (4–26), LN positivity was 0.8% and the median (range) LN involvement was 2 (1–2). There was margin positivity in 13.9% of patients and up-grading in 29.3% and down-grading in 5.3%. While 11.4% of patients had up-staging from T1/2 to T3 and 37.1% had down-staging from T3 to T2. One case (0.09%) was converted to open surgery and six patients were transfused (0.5%). At a mean (range) follow-up of 88.6 (60–120) months, 85.4% of patients were free of biochemical recurrence, 93.8% were continent and 76.6% of previously potent non-diabetic men aged <70 years were potent after bilateral nerve preservation.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term results obtainable from LRP match or exceed those previously published in large contemporary open and robot-assisted surgical series.

Read more articles of the week

Article of the Week: An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort

/by

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches

Oussama Elhage*†, Ben Challacombe*, Adam Shortland‡ and Prokar Dasgupta*
§*The Urology Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, †Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Transplantation, King’s College London, ‡One Small Step Laboratory, and §MRC Centre for Transplantation & National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, King’s College London, King’s Health Partners, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVES

To evaluate, in a simulated suturing task, individual surgeons’ performance using three surgical approaches: open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Six urological surgeons made an in vitro simulated vesico-urethral anastomosis. All surgeons performed the simulated suturing task using all three surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted). The time taken to perform each task was recorded. Participants were evaluated for perceived discomfort using the self-reporting Borg scale. Errors made by surgeons were quantified by studying the video recording of the tasks. Anastomosis quality was quantified using scores for knot security, symmetry of suture, position of suture and apposition of anastomosis.

RESULTS

The time taken to complete the task by the laparoscopic approach was on average 221 s, compared with 55 s for the open approach and 116 s for the robot-assisted approach (anova, P < 0.005). The number of errors and the level of self-reported discomfort were highest for the laparoscopic approach (anova, P < 0.005). Limitations of the present study include the small sample size and variation in prior surgical experience of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

In an in vitro model of anastomosis surgery, robot-assisted surgery combines the accuracy of open surgery while causing lesser surgeon discomfort than laparoscopy and maintaining minimal access.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Conventional laparoscopic surgery – more pain, no gain!

/by

Advances in surgical technology have revolutionized the way surgery is performed today. Conventional laparoscopic surgery dominated the surgical paradigm for several decades, until robot-assisted surgery created the next giant leap. In the pressent article, Elhage et al. [1] compare and correlate physical stress and surgical performances among three modes of a standardized surgical step. Their study shows the obvious physical strain and technical limitations faced while performing conventional laparoscopic surgery, subsequently leading to compromised surgical outcomes. The physical impact of conventional laparoscopic surgery has been well documented through surgeon feedback as well as ergonomic assessment [2, 3]. Various studies have reported that higher physical stress, associated with ergonomic limitations, is experienced when performing conventional laparoscopy compared to the comfort and ease of robot-assisted surgery, as highlighted in the present study. Increased workload has also been associated with performance errors, with a steep learning curve needed to achieve surgical excellence during conventional laparoscopy [4].

Currently, the use of robot-assisted surgery is on the rise, as an alternative to both open and conventional laparoscopic surgery across the developed world, despite its obvious economic limitations. Better ergonomics during robot-assisted surgery will increase the comfort of the surgeon, but the future of surgery may easily be linked to the improvements experienced by all of us in the automobile industry. Developments, from manual gear-clutch control to automatic speed control and the luxury of adaptive cruise control today, make us safe drivers with minimal physical stress. The concept of adaptive cruise control, which adjusts the speed of a vehicle in relation to its surroundings, sounds similar to the leap from manual camera control during conventional laparoscopy to console-based control during camera navigation in robot-assisted surgery. With advances in the speed and size of computers, pneumatic-based joint mechanics and mindfulness meditation on the horizon, it will not be long before surgeons will sit back and watch the marvel of the machine. Surgeons just need to learn to hold on to their seats!

Read the full article
Syed J. Raza*, Khurshid A. Guru† and Robert P. Huben†
*Fellow, †Endowed Professor of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology and A.T.L.A.S (Applied Technology Laboratory for Advanced Surgery) Program, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA

 

References

 

1 Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P. An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison among robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int 2015; 115: 274–281

2 Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM. The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

J Robotic Surg 2012; 6: 65–723 Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K, Meyer JP, Felblinger J, Hubert J. Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot 2013; 9:142–147

4 Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, Acker CE, Stefanidis D. Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthc 2010; 5: 267–271

 

Video: Step-by-Step. Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation – Extravesical approach

/by

Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation: extravesical technique

Pankaj P. Dangle 1,*,Anup Shah 2 and Mohan S. Gundeti 3,4

1 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

2 Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

3 Center for Pediatric Robotic and Minimal Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

4 Comer Children’s Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA

Read the full article
Objectives

To describe our standardised approach to performing robot-assisted extravesical ureteric reimplantation.

Patients and Methods

A total of 29 children, with high grade (III–V) vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR) underwent robot-assisted extravesical ureteric reimplantation between September 2010 and September 2013. Follow-up renal ultrasonography was performed at 1 month and 3 months and a voiding cysto-urethrogram (VCUG) was obtained at 4 months to assess VUR resolution.

Results

The mean (range) patient age at the time of surgery was 5.38 (3.0–10.0) years. Postoperative VCUG showed complete resolution of VUR in 32/40 ureters (80%). Of the remaining refluxing ureters, downgrading of VUR on VCUG was shown in 7/8 ureters (87.5%). The mean (range) length of hospital stay was 1.8 (1–3) days.

Conclusions

In conclusion, robot-assisted extravesical ureteric reimplantation is technically feasible with acceptable resolution of VUR.

Read the full article

Article of the week: Behind the curve: residents’ access to RAL is poor in Europe

/2 Comments/by

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by prominent members of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video of Dr. Furriel discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Training of European urology residents in laparoscopy: results of a pan-European survey

Frederico T.G. Furriel, Maria P. Laguna*, Arnaldo J.C. Figueiredo, Pedro T.C. Nunes and Jens J. Rassweiler†

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University Hospital of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, *Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and †Department of Urology, Klinikum Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To assess the participation of European urology residents in urological laparoscopy, their training patterns and facilities available in European Urology Departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

• A survey, consisting of 23 questions concerning laparoscopic training, was published online as well as distributed on paper, during the Annual European Association of Urology Congress in 2012.

• Exposure to laparoscopic procedures, acquired laparoscopic experience, training patterns, training facilities and motivation were evaluated.

• Data was analysed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

• In all, 219 European urology residents answered the survey.

• Conventional laparoscopy was available in 74% of the respondents’ departments, while robotic surgery was available in 17% of the departments.

• Of the respondents, 27% were first surgeons and 43% were assistants in conventional laparoscopic procedures. Only 23% of the residents rated their laparoscopic experience as at least ‘satisfactory’; 32% of the residents did not attend any course or fellowship on laparoscopy.

• Dry laboratory was the most frequent setting for training (33%), although 42% of the respondents did not have access to any type of laparoscopic laboratory.

• The motivation to perform laparoscopy was rated as ‘high’ or ‘very high’ by 77% of the respondents, and 81% considered a post-residency fellowship in laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

• Urological laparoscopy is available in most European training institutions, with residents playing an active role in the procedure. However, most of them consider their laparoscopic experience to be poor.

• Moreover, the availability of training facilities and participation in laparoscopy courses and fellowships are low and should be encouraged.

 

Read Previous Articles of the Week

 

Editorial: Minimally invasive surgical training: do we need new standards?

/by

The pan-European survey conducted by Furriel et al. [1] in this issue of BJUI is a timely address of a hot topic in urology.

More than 20 years have passed since the first laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed by Clayman et al. [2] in 1991, and now all urological major interventions have been performed with one or more different minimally invasive techniques (standard, single-site or robot-assisted laparoscopy); some of them have passed the judgment of time becoming ‘gold standard’ treatments, while others are still under evaluation. Specifically, the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend laparoscopic radical nephrectomy as the ‘standard of care’ over open surgery, report favorable outcomes for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and propose as optional treatments laparoscopic or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and radical cystectomy [3].

Obviously, this surgical revolution brings two major new issues: (i) Starting from academic and training centres, hundreds of Urology Departments throughout Europe need to update their surgical knowledge and expertise, making senior urologists perform up-to-date procedures; (ii) Residents and young urologists require adequate and possibly standardised training in minimally invasive surgery, learning at least the basic laparoscopic skills. The study by Furriel et al. [1] correctly highlights both problems.

First, according to the survey, penetration of laparoscopy in the most important urological training centres is unexpectedly low. In fact, more than one out of four centers (26%) do not perform minimally invasive surgery, even for the ‘standards of care’, such as laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. Moreover, as the survey was conducted specifically on the topic of minimally invasive surgery, it is probable that unexposed residents were less interested in responding, making the data of penetration probably even worse than reported. This fact reflects a serious problem present in most training centres. While previously surgery slowly evolved, laparoscopy and technology brought sudden innovations, putting several senior urologists ‘out of the game’. Hence, today, training is needed not only for residents, but also for consultants. In the meantime, it is important that residents are trained in centres were minimally invasive surgery is already widely available. In this perspective, European educational authorities should endeavour to certificate the residents’ training centres, for example on the basis of adherence to EAU guidelines. Academic or non-academic training centres not adherent to guidelines (and thus not performing minimally invasive surgery) should therefore be deprived of residents.

Secondly, training residents in minimally invasive surgery can be approached in different ways, from low-cost self-made dry laboratories to expensive virtual reality or robotic three-dimensional simulators. According to the survey, >40% of centres have no training facilities available. It has been shown that self-built, cheap, dry laboratories are as efficient in training as the industrial ones [4], so that it is not a matter of costs but a matter of interest. We strongly believe that watching surgical videos, observing live surgeries and using (low-cost or not) dry laboratories are fundamental steps in acquiring the basic skills in laparoscopy, while the modular training proposed by Stolzenburg et al. [5] for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is the best live training model and can be exported to other kinds of surgery, such as radical or partial nephrectomy. In the centres where robot-assisted surgery is available, working as a table-side assistant is another good way to acquire laparoscopic skills.

A great debate is currently ongoing about credentialing in minimally invasive surgery training [6]. Pragmatically, when the European training centres are certificated for adherence to the EAU guidelines, there will be no need for a specific credentialing in laparoscopic skills, because it will be included in the standard training path, together with endoscopic and open surgery.

In conclusion, the survey by Furriel et al. [1] shows that times are changed: the old axiom ‘big cut, big surgeon’ is not valid anymore. The emerging urological generations know it, and ask to be adequately trained. Training centres must evolve, because in 2013 minimally invasive surgery has formally to be considered as part of the standard urological armoury.

Antonio Galfano and Aldo Massimo Bocciardi
Department of Urology, Ospedale Niguarda Ca’ Granda, Milan, Italy

Read the full article

References

  1. Furriel F, Laguna MP, Figueiredo A, Nunes P, Rassweiler JJ. Training of European urology residents in laparoscopy: results of a pan-European survey. BJU Int 2013; 112: 1223–1228
  2. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1370–1371
  3. EAU Guidelines, edition presented at the 28th EAU Annual Congress, Milan 2013. ISBN 978-90-79754-71-7. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, The Netherlands. Available at: https://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/. Accessed September 2013
  4. Beatty JD. How to build an inexpensive laparoscopic webcam-based trainer. BJU Int 2005; 96: 679–682
  5. Stolzenburg JU, Schwaibold H, Bhanot SM et al. Modular surgical training for endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2005; 96: 1022–1027
  6. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 2011;185: 1191–1197

Video: How do urology residents rate their laparoscopic experience?

/by

Training of European urology residents in laparoscopy: results of a pan-European survey

Frederico T.G. Furriel, Maria P. Laguna*, Arnaldo J.C. Figueiredo, Pedro T.C. Nunes and Jens J. Rassweiler†

Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University Hospital of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, *Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and †Department of Urology, Klinikum Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To assess the participation of European urology residents in urological laparoscopy, their training patterns and facilities available in European Urology Departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

• A survey, consisting of 23 questions concerning laparoscopic training, was published online as well as distributed on paper, during the Annual European Association of Urology Congress in 2012.

• Exposure to laparoscopic procedures, acquired laparoscopic experience, training patterns, training facilities and motivation were evaluated.

• Data was analysed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

• In all, 219 European urology residents answered the survey.

• Conventional laparoscopy was available in 74% of the respondents’ departments, while robotic surgery was available in 17% of the departments.

• Of the respondents, 27% were first surgeons and 43% were assistants in conventional laparoscopic procedures. Only 23% of the residents rated their laparoscopic experience as at least ‘satisfactory’; 32% of the residents did not attend any course or fellowship on laparoscopy.

• Dry laboratory was the most frequent setting for training (33%), although 42% of the respondents did not have access to any type of laparoscopic laboratory.

• The motivation to perform laparoscopy was rated as ‘high’ or ‘very high’ by 77% of the respondents, and 81% considered a post-residency fellowship in laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

• Urological laparoscopy is available in most European training institutions, with residents playing an active role in the procedure. However, most of them consider their laparoscopic experience to be poor.

• Moreover, the availability of training facilities and participation in laparoscopy courses and fellowships are low and should be encouraged.

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.