Browsing by Author "Porter, James"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An Assessment Tool to Provide Targeted Feedback to Robotic Surgical Trainees: Development and Validation of the End-to-End Assessment of Suturing Expertise (EASE)
    (American Urological Association, 2022-11) Haque, Taseen F.; Hui, Alvin; You, Jonathan; Ma, Runzhuo; Nguyen, Jessica H.; Lei, Xiaomeng; Cen, Steven; Aron, Monish; Collins, Justin W.; Djaladat, Hooman; Ghazi, Ahmed; Yates, Kenneth A.; Abreu, Andre L.; Daneshmand, Siamak; Desai, Mihir M.; Goh, Alvin C.; Hu, Jim C.; Lebastchi, Amir H.; Lendvay, Thomas S.; Porter, James; Schuckman, Anne K.; Sotelo, Rene; Sundaram, Chandru P.; Gill, Inderbir S.; Hung, Andrew J.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Purpose: To create a suturing skills assessment tool that comprehensively defines criteria around relevant sub-skills of suturing and to confirm its validity. Materials and Methods: 5 expert surgeons and an educational psychologist participated in a cognitive task analysis (CTA) to deconstruct robotic suturing into an exhaustive list of technical skill domains and sub-skill descriptions. Using the Delphi methodology, each CTA element was systematically reviewed by a multi-institutional panel of 16 surgical educators and implemented in the final product when content validity index (CVI) reached ≥0.80. In the subsequent validation phase, 3 blinded reviewers independently scored 8 training videos and 39 vesicourethral anastomoses (VUA) using EASE; 10 VUA were also scored using Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE), a previously validated, but simplified suturing assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability was measured with intra-class correlation (ICC) for normally distributed values and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for skewed distributions. Expert (≥100 prior robotic cases) and trainee (<100 cases) EASE scores from the non-training cases were compared using a generalized linear mixed model. Results: After two rounds of Delphi process, panelists agreed on 7 domains, 18 sub-skills, and 57 detailed sub-skill descriptions with CVI ≥ 0.80. Inter-rater reliability was moderately high (ICC median: 0.69, range: 0.51-0.97; PABAK: 0.77, 0.62-0.97). Multiple EASE sub-skill scores were able to distinguish surgeon experience. The Spearman’s rho correlation between overall EASE and RACE scores was 0.635 (p=0.003). Conclusions: Through a rigorous CTA and Delphi process, we have developed EASE, whose suturing sub-skills can distinguish surgeon experience while maintaining rater reliability.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development and validation of an objective scoring tool to evaluate surgical dissection: Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART)
    (American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., 2021) Vanstrum, Erik B.; Ma, Runzhuo; Maya-Silva, Jacqueline; Sanford, Daniel; Nguyen, Jessica H.; Lei, Xiaomeng; Chevinksy, Michael; Ghoreifi, Alireza; Han, Jullet; Polotti, Charles F.; Powers, Ryan; Yip, Wesley; Zhang, Michael; Aron, Monish; Collins, Justin; Daneshmand, Siamak; Davis, John W.; Desai, Mihir M.; Gerjy, Roger; Goh, Alvin C.; Kimmig, Rainer; Lendvay, Thomas S.; Porter, James; Sotelo, Rene; Sundaram, Chandru P.; Cen, Steven; Gill, Inderbir S.; Hung, Andrew J.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Purpose: Evaluation of surgical competency has important implications for training new surgeons, accreditation, and improving patient outcomes. A method to specifically evaluate dissection performance does not yet exist. This project aimed to design a tool to assess surgical dissection quality. Methods: Delphi method was used to validate structure and content of the dissection evaluation. A multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary panel of 14 expert surgeons systematically evaluated each element of the dissection tool. Ten blinded reviewers evaluated 46 de-identified videos of pelvic lymph node and seminal vesicle dissections during the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Inter-rater variability was calculated using prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. The area under the curve from receiver operating characteristic curve was used to assess discrimination power for overall DART scores as well as domains in discriminating trainees (≤100 robotic cases) from experts (>100). Results: Four rounds of Delphi method achieved language and content validity in 27/28 elements. Use of 3- or 5-point scale remained contested; thus, both scales were evaluated during validation. The 3-point scale showed improved kappa for each domain. Experts demonstrated significantly greater total scores on both scales (3-point, p< 0.001; 5-point, p< 0.001). The ability to distinguish experience was equivalent for total score on both scales (3-point AUC= 0.92, CI 0.82-1.00, 5-point AUC= 0.92, CI 0.83-1.00). Conclusions: We present the development and validation of Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART), an objective and reproducible 3-point surgical assessment to evaluate tissue dissection. DART can effectively differentiate levels of surgeon experience and can be used in multiple surgical steps.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    On-Clamp vs. Off-Clamp Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for cT2 Renal Tumors: Retrospective Propensity-Score-Matched Multicenter Outcome Analysis
    (MDPI, 2022-09-13) Brassetti, Aldo; Cacciamani, Giovanni E.; Mari, Andrea; Garisto, Juan D.; Bertolo, Riccardo; Sundaram, Chandru P.; Derweesh, Ithaar; Bindayi, Ahmet; Dasgupta, Prokar; Porter, James; Mottrie, Alexander; Schips, Luigi; Rah, Koon Ho; Chen, David Y. T.; Zhang, Chao; Jacobsohn, Kenneth; Anceschi, Umberto; Bove, Alfredo M.; Costantini, Manuela; Ferriero, Mariaconsiglia; Mastroianni, Riccardo; Misuraca, Leonardo; Tuderti, Gabriele; Kutikov, Alexander; White, Wesley M.; Ryan, Stephen T.; Porpiglia, Francesco; Kaouk, Jihad; Minervini, Andrea; Gill, Inderbir; Autorino, Riccardo; Simone, Giuseppe; Urology, School of Medicine
    We compared perioperative outcomes after on-clamp versus off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for >7 cm renal masses. A multicenter dataset was queried for patients who had undergone RAPN for a cT2cN0cM0 kidney tumor from July 2007 to February 2022. The Trifecta achievement (negative surgical margins, no severe complications, and ≤ 30% postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction) was considered a surrogate of surgical quality. Overall, 316 cases were included in the analysis, and 58% achieved the Trifecta. A propensity-score-matched analysis generated two cohorts of 89 patients homogeneous for age, ASA score, preoperative eGFR, and RENAL score (all p > 0.21). Compared to the on-clamp approach, OT was significantly shorter in the off-clamp group (80 vs. 190 min; p < 0.001), the incidence of sRFD was lower (22% vs. 40%; p = 0.01), and the Trifecta rate higher (66% vs. 46%; p = 0.01). In a crude analysis, >20 min of hilar clamping was associated with a significantly higher risk of sRFD (OR: 2.30; 95%CI: 1.13−4.64; p = 0.02) and with reduced probabilities of achieving the Trifecta (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.27−0.79; p = 0.004). Purely off-clamp RAPN seems to be a safe and viable option to treat cT2 renal masses and may outperform the on-clamp approach regarding perioperative surgical outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Retroperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Comparative Outcomes
    (Elsevier, 2022-04-26) Carbonara, Umberto; Crocerossa, Fabio; Campi, Riccardo; Veccia, Alessandro; Cacciamani, Giovanni E.; Amparore, Daniele; Checcucci, Enrico; Loizzo, Davide; Pecoraro, Angela; Marchioni, Michele; Lonati, Chiara; Sundaram, Chandru P.; Mehrazin, Reza; Porter, James; Kaouk, Jihad H.; Porpiglia, Francesco; Ditonno, Pasquale; Autorino, Riccardo; YAU-EAU Kidney Cancer Working Group; Urology, School of Medicine
    Context: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has gained increasing popularity as primary minimally invasive surgical treatment for localized renal tumors, and it has preferably been performed with a transperitoneal approach. However, the retroperitoneal approach represents an alternative approach given potential advantages. Objective: To provide an updated analysis of the comparative outcomes of retroperitoneal RAPN (R-RAPN) versus transperitoneal RAPN (T-RAPN). Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to September 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A sensitivity analysis was performed considering only matched-pair studies. Evidence synthesis: Seventeen studies, which were published between 2013 and 2021, were retrieved. None of them was a randomized clinical trial. Among the 6,266 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2261 (36.1%) and 4,005 (63.9%) underwent R-RAPN and T-RAPN, respectively. No significant difference was found in terms of baseline features. The T-RAPN group presented a higher rate of male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, p = 0.03) and larger tumor size (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.2 cm; p = 0.003). The R-RAPN group reported more frequent posterior renal masses (OR: 0.23; p < 0.0001). The retroperitoneal approach presented lower estimated blood loss (WMD: 30.41 ml; p = 0.001), shorter operative time (OT; WMD: 20.36 min; p = 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (LOS; WMD: 0.35 d; p = 0.002). Overall complication rates were 13.7% and 16.05% in the R-RAPN and T-RAPN groups, respectively (OR: 1.32; p = 0.008). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding major (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3 grade) complication rate, "pentafecta" achievement, as well as positive margin rates. When considering only matched-pair studies, no difference between groups was found in terms of baseline characteristics. Posterior renal masses were more frequent in the R-RAPN group (OR: 0.6; p = 0.03). Similar to the analysis of the entire cohort, R-RAPN reported lower EBL (WMD: 35.56 ml; p < 0.0001) and a shorter OT (WMD: 18.31 min; p = 0.03). Overall and major complication rates were similar between the two groups. The LOS was significantly lower for R-RAPN (WMD: 0.46 d; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of overall PSM rates. Conclusions: R-RAPN offers similar surgical outcomes to T-RAPN, and it carries potential advantages in terms of shorter OT and LOS. Available evidence remains limited by the lack of randomized clinical trials. Patient summary: In this review of the literature, we looked at comparative outcomes of two surgical approaches to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We found that the retroperitoneal technique offers similar surgical outcomes to the transperitoneal one, with potential advantages in terms of shorter operative time and length of hospital stay.