Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

COMPARISON OF TRAINING MODALITIES FOR PERFORMING LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: EXPERIENCE WITH 1,000 PATIENTS

2005; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 174; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1097/01.ju.0000165152.61295.cb

1527-3792

Thomas Frede, Ti̇bet Erdoğru, Derek K. Zukosky, Kemal Hakan Gülkesen, Doğu Teber, Jens Rassweiler,

Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology: Outcomes/Epidemiology/Socioeconomics1 Aug 2005COMPARISON OF TRAINING MODALITIES FOR PERFORMING LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: EXPERIENCE WITH 1,000 PATIENTS THOMAS FREDE, TIBET ERDOGRU, DEREK ZUKOSKY, HAKAN GULKESEN, DOGU TEBER, and JENS RASSWEILER THOMAS FREDETHOMAS FREDE , TIBET ERDOGRUTIBET ERDOGRU , DEREK ZUKOSKYDEREK ZUKOSKY , HAKAN GULKESENHAKAN GULKESEN , DOGU TEBERDOGU TEBER , and JENS RASSWEILERJENS RASSWEILER View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000165152.61295.cbAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We report a detailed analysis of different training modalities on the transferability of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to generations of surgeons. Material and Methods: The first generation surgeon with experience with 600 cases and the second generation surgeon with 150 were trained in open retropubic radical prostatectomy and laparoscopy, whereas the third generation surgeon with 150 cases was trained only laparoscopically. The fourth generation of surgeons with a total of 50 cases was trained in our fellowship program. We analyzed groups of 50 operations. The groups were comparable with respect to patient age, prostate weight and pathological tumor stage. Results: We observed a continual decrease in operative time between (322 to 247 minutes.) and within (332 to 196 minutes.) the analyzed groups. This result was also expressed in a decrease in the time required for anastomosis. A significant decrease was observed for the initial transfusion rate (4% to 10%). No difference was found in the complication rate (ie conversion in 8% to 0% of cases). Pathological outcomes (ie positive margins for pT2/pT3) were comparable in the first 3 surgeon groups (14.9%, 14.2% and 22%, respectively) and available functional results (followup greater than 2 years) did not reveal any influence of the learning curve. A learning curve was observed only for overall operative time and the time required for anastomosis but it was shown to be significantly shorter for the following generations. Conclusions: Based on a specific training program the personal level of education has a minor impact on the results and reproducibility of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy technique. References 1 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology1997; 50: 854. Google Scholar 2 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol2000; 163: 1643. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology2000; 55: 630. Google Scholar 4 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol2001; 166: 2101. Link, Google Scholar 5 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technique. Urol Clin North Am2001; 28: 423. Google Scholar 6 : Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a false debate over a real challenge. J Urol2004; 171: 714. Link, Google Scholar 7 : Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis. Eur Urol2004; 46: 312. Google Scholar 8 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opin Urol2004; 14: 75. Google Scholar 9 : Video TUR: raising the gold standard. New aspects, techniques and tendencies to minimize invasiveness. Eur Urol1993; 24: 256. Google Scholar 10 : The Heilbronn laparoscopic training program for laparoscopic suturing: concept and validation. J Endourol2005; 19: 222. Google Scholar 11 : Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol1998; 160: 2418. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Complications of laparoscopic procedures after concentrated training in urological laparoscopy. J Urol2001; 166: 2109. Google Scholar 13 : Laparoscopic practice patterns among North American urologists 5 years after formal training. J Urol1999; 161: 881. Link, Google Scholar 14 : Risk factors for complications and morbidity after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol1997; 157: 1760. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: decreasing the learning curve using a mentor initiated approach. J Urol2003; 169: 2063. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol2003; 170: 2292. Link, Google Scholar 17 : Relationship between hospital volume and late survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery1999; 126: 178. Google Scholar 18 : Influence of hospital procedure volume on outcomes following surgery for colon cancer. JAMA2000; 284: 3028. Google Scholar 19 : Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA1998; 280: 1747. Google Scholar 20 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a European virus with global potentials. Arch Esp Urol2002; 55: 603. Google Scholar Departments of Urology, Helios-Klinik Müllheim (TF), Müllheim and SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg (DT, JR), Heilbronn, Germany, Departments of Urology (TE) and Biostatistics (HG), Faculty of Medicine, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey, and Department of Urology (DZ), Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan© 2005 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byTeber D, Sofikerim M, Ates M, Gözen A, Güven O, Sanli Ö and Rassweiler J (2018) Is Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus a Predictive Factor for Incontinence After Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? A Matched Pair and Multivariate AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 183, NO. 3, (1087-1091), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2010.Ates M, Teber D, Gözen A, Tefekli A, Sugiono M, Hruza M and Rassweiler J (2018) Do Tumor Volume, Tumor Volume Ratio, Type of Nerve Sparing and Surgical Experience Affect Prostate Specific Antigen Recurrence After Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy? A Matched Pair AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 177, NO. 5, (1771-1776), Online publication date: 1-May-2007.Cadeddu J (2018) Re: Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Initial ExperienceJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 5, (2315-2315), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2006. Volume 174Issue 2August 2005Page: 673-678 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2005 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordseducation, medicalprostatic neoplasmsprostatectomylaparoscopyprostateMetricsAuthor Information THOMAS FREDE More articles by this author TIBET ERDOGRU More articles by this author DEREK ZUKOSKY More articles by this author HAKAN GULKESEN More articles by this author DOGU TEBER More articles by this author JENS RASSWEILER More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...