RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To develop performance metrics that objectively define a reference approach to a transurethral resection of bladder tumours (TURBT) procedure, seek consensus on the performance metrics from a group of international experts. METHODS: The characterisation of a reference approach to a TURBT procedure was performed by identifying phases and explicitly defined procedure events (i.e., steps, errors, and critical errors). An international panel of experienced urologists (i.e., Delphi panel) was then assembled to scrutinise the metrics using a modified Delphi process. Based on the panel's feedback, the proposed metrics could be edited, supplemented, or deleted. A voting process was conducted to establish the consensus level on the metrics. Consensus was defined as the panel majority (i.e., >80%) agreeing that the metric definitions were accurate and acceptable. The number of metric units before and after the Delphi meeting were presented. RESULTS: A core metrics group (i.e., characterisation group) deconstructed the TURBT procedure. The reference case was identified as an elective TURBT on a male patient, diagnosed after full diagnostic evaluation with three or fewer bladder tumours of ≤3 cm. The characterisation group identified six procedure phases, 60 procedure steps, 43 errors, and 40 critical errors. The metrics were presented to the Delphi panel which included 15 experts from six countries. After the Delphi, six procedure phases, 63 procedure steps, 47 errors, and 41 critical errors were identified. The Delphi panel achieved a 100% consensus. CONCLUSION: Performance metrics to characterise a reference approach to TURBT were developed and an international panel of experts reached 100% consensus on them. This consensus supports their face and content validity. The metrics can now be used for a proficiency-based progression training curriculum for TURBT.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) is the actual gold-standard for the treatment of clinically localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (cT1-2 with no indications for nephron-sparing surgery). Limited evidence is currently available on the role of robotics in the field of radical nephrectomy. The aim of the current study was to provide a systematic review of the current evidence on the role of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and to analyze the comparative studies between RRN and open nephrectomy (ON)/LRN. METHODS: A Medline search was performed between 2000-2013 with the terms "robotic radical nephrectomy", "robot-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy", "radical nephrectomy". Six RRN case-series and four comparative studies between RRN and (ON)/pure or hand-assisted LRN were identified. RESULTS: Current literature produces a low level of evidence for RRN in the treatment of RCC, with only one prospective study available. Mean operative time (OT) ranges between 127.8-345 min, mean estimated blood loss (EBL) ranges between 100-273.6 ml, and mean hospital stay (HS) ranges between 1.2-4.3 days. The comparison between RRN and LRN showed no differences in the evaluated outcomes except for a longer OT for RRN as evidenced in two studies. Significantly higher direct costs and costs of the disposable instruments were also observed for RRN. The comparison between RRN and ON showed that ON is characterized by shorter OT but higher EBL, higher need of postoperative analgesics and longer HS. CONCLUSIONS: No advantage of robotics over standard laparoscopy for the treatment of clinically localized RCC was evidenced. Promising preliminary results on oncologic efficacy of RRN have been published on the T3a-b disease. Fields of wider application of robotics should be researched where indications for open surgery still persist.