Are Routine Laboratory Investigations Necessary Following Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy?

OBJECTIVE: To determine how effective routine postoperative blood work is in identifying complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), the gold standard treatment for large volume stone disease. Although major complication rates are low, hemorrhagic and sepsis-related complications are serious and can occur. Routine post-PCNL complete blood count is routinely performed by most endourologists but may be a low-value practice. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all PCNL procedures at our center over a 3-year period. Patient demographic, stone characteristics and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-five patients (196 female and 189 males) underwent PCNL for the treatment of urolithiasis. Mean age was 55.8 years and mean length of stay in hospital was 1.74 days. Most patients (82.9%) had neither ureteric stent nor percutaneous tube prior to PCNL. Postoperatively, 4 patients (1.0%) required a blood transfusion and 14 patients (3.6%) developed urosepsis. Patients who required either a transfusion or developed urosepsis demonstrated abnormal vital signs (tachycardia, hypotension, or fever) postoperatively. Sixteen patients (4.2%) had normal vital signs but had an extended hospital stay only to monitor abnormal blood work results. None these patients required a transfusion nor developed urosepsis but had a length of stay that was a mean of 1.5 days longer patients with normal postoperative vital signs and blood work. CONCLUSION: Abnormal vital signs alone identified all patients that required transfusion or treatment for urosepsis after PCNL. Routine complete blood count testing postoperatively may not improve detection of infectious or bleeding complications and may prolong hospital admission unnecessarily.

Basic Laparoscopic Skills Assessment Study: Validation and Standard Setting among Canadian Urology Trainees.

PURPOSE: As urology training programs move to a competency based medical education model, iterative assessments with objective standards will be required. To develop a valid set of technical skills standards we initiated a national skills assessment study focusing initially on laparoscopic skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2014 and March 2016 the basic laparoscopic skill of Canadian urology trainees and attending urologists was assessed using 4 standardized tasks from the AUA (American Urological Association) BLUS (Basic Laparoscopic Urological Surgery) curriculum, including peg transfer, pattern cutting, suturing and knot tying, and vascular clip applying. All performances were video recorded and assessed using 3 methods, including time and error based scoring, expert global rating scores and C-SATS (Crowd-Sourced Assessments of Technical Skill Global Rating Scale), a novel, crowd sourced assessment platform. Different methods of standard setting were used to develop pass-fail cut points. RESULTS: Six attending urologists and 99 trainees completed testing. Reported laparoscopic experience and training level correlated with performance (p <0.01). Attending urologists were significantly better than trainees (p <0.05), demonstrating construct validity evidence for the 4 AUA BLUS tasks. The C-SATS method of assessment correlated well with the traditional methods of time and error based scoring, and the global rating scale. We were able to use relative and absolute standard setting methods to define pass-fail cut points for all 4 AUA BLUS tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 AUA BLUS tasks demonstrated good construct validity evidence for use in assessing basic laparoscopic skill. Performance scores using the novel C-SATS platform correlated well with traditional time-consuming methods of assessment. Various standard setting methods were used to develop pass-fail cut points for educators to use when making formative and summative assessments of basic laparoscopic skill.

Multidisciplinary validation study of the da Vinci Skills Simulator: educational tool and assessment device.

Despite the increased dexterity and precision of robotic surgery, like any new surgical technology it is still associated with a learning curve that can impact patient outcomes. The use of surgical simulators outside of the operating room, in a low-stakes environment, has been shown to shorten such learning curves. We present a multidisciplinary validation study of a robotic surgery simulator, the da Vinci(®) Skills Simulator (dVSS). Trainees and attending faculty from the University of Toronto, Departments of Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology (ObGyn), were recruited to participate in this validation study. All participants completed seven different exercises on the dVSS (Camera Targeting 1, Peg Board 1, Peg Board 2, Ring Walk 2, Match Board 1, Thread the Rings, Suture Sponge 1) and, using the da Vinci S Robot (dVR), completed two standardized skill tasks (Ring Transfer, Needle Passing). Participants were categorized as novice robotic surgeon (NRS) and experienced robotic surgeon (ERS) based on the number of robotic cases performed. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent T test and non-parametric Spearman's correlation. A total of 53 participants were included in the study: 27 urology, 13 ObGyn, and 13 thoracic surgery (Table 1). Most participants (89 %) either had no prior console experience or had performed <10 robotic cases, while one (2 %) had performed 10-20 cases and five (9 %) had performed ≥20 robotic surgeries. The dVSS demonstrated excellent face and content validity and 97 and 86 % of participants agreed that it was useful for residency training and post-graduate training, respectively. The dVSS also demonstrated construct validity, with NRS performing significantly worse than ERS on most exercises with respect to overall score, time to completion, economy of motion, and errors (Table 2). Excellent concurrent validity was also demonstrated as dVSS scores for most exercises correlated with performance of the two standardized skill tasks using the dVR (Table 3). This multidisciplinary validation study of the dVSS provides excellent face, content, construct, and concurrent validity evidence, which supports its integrated use in a comprehensive robotic surgery training program, both as an educational tool and potentially as an assessment device. Table 1 dVSS validation study participant demographic information Survey question Response Number (%) Gender Male 36 (67.9) Female 17 (32.1) Handedness Right-hand dominant 45 (84.9) Left-hand dominant 4 (7.5) Ambidextrous 3 (5.7) Level of training Junior Resident (R1-R3) 17 (32.1) Senior Resident (R4-R5) 12 (22.6) Fellow 16 (30.2) Staff Surgeon 8 (15.1) Specialty Urology 27 (50.9) ObGyn 13 (24.5) Thoracics 13 (24.5) Previous MIS experience (laparoscopic or thoracoscopic) None/minimal 17 (32.1) Moderate 11 (20.8) Significant 18 (34.0) Fellowship-trained in MIS 4 (7.5) Previous robotic surgery experience None 32 (60.4) Yes 21 (39.6) If yes, number of operative cases as surgical assistant 0 cases 33 (62.3) <10 cases 9 (17.0) 10-20 cases 3 (5.7) >20 cases 8 (9.4) If yes, number of operative cases at robotic console for at least 30 min 0 cases 41 (77.4) <10 cases 6 (11.3) 10-20 cases 1 (1.9) >20 cases 5 (9.4) MIS minimally invasive surgery Table 2 dVSS construct validity evidence dVSS exercise All subjects' overall score (%, mean ± SD) Novice robotic surgeon overall score (%, mean ± SD) Expert robotic surgeon overall score (%, mean ± SD) p value Camera Targeting 1 69.943 ± 21.7489 67.170 ± 21.5258 91.667 ± 4.2269 0.008 Peg Board 1 78.596 ± 11.9824 76.913 ± 11.6616 91.500 ± 3.8341 0.004 Match Board 1 69.880 ± 17.7691 67.864 ± 17.9075 84.667 ± 6.1860 0.028 Thread the Rings 74.152 ± 16.4289 71.825 ± 16.2605 89.667 ± 5.8878 0.011 Suture Sponge 1 74.787 ± 14.3086 73.171 ± 14.5067 85.833 ± 5.6716 0.042 Ring Walk 2 75.098 ± 20.0861 73.333 ± 20.1099 88.333 ± 15.4100 0.086 Peg Board 2 84.308 ± 11.7633 83.283 ± 12.0861 92.167 ± 3.6009 0.082 Table 3 dVSS concurrent validity evidence NP time NP errors RT time RT errors Camera Targeting 1 overall score 0.471 (0.001) 0.083 (0.575) 0.291 (0.045) 0.061 (0.685) Peg Board 1 overall score 0.486 (0.001) 0.141 (0.344) 0.325 (0.026) 0.088 (0.555) Match Board 1 overall score 0.543 (<0.001) 0.096 (0.530) 0.295 (0.050) 0.215 (0.162) Thread the Rings overall score 0.432 (0.005) 0.231 (0.147) 0.533 (<0.001) 0.163 (0.310) Suture Sponge 1 overall score 0.592 (<0.001) 0.105 (0.509) 0.437 (0.004) 0.015 (0.925) Ring Walk 2 overall score 0.454 (0.002) 0.179 (0.234) 0.399 (0.006) 0.022 (0.884) Peg Board 2 overall score 0.675 (<0.001) 0.058 (0.696) 0.073 (0.626) 0.045 (0.762) Subjects' overall score for each dVSS exercise is correlated with the time to complete (time) and number of errors (errors) for the Needle Passing (NP) and Ring Transfer (RT) tasks performed using the dVR. Data is expressed as Pearson correlation coefficient (p value).

Status of urologic laparoscopy in 2004: a survey of CUA members.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal method of acquiring laparoscopic skills has not been determined. We sought to examine the current status of urologic laparoscopy and how practicing urologists acquired the skills needed to perform laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: A mail questionnaire regarding laparoscopic practices and training was sent to 480 members of the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) using standard Dillman survey methodology. RESULTS: Three hundred (62.5%) urologists responded to the questionnaire; 56.5% practiced in the community and 41.1% in an academic setting. There were 59.9% who had completed some form of fellowship training. Recent graduates (who finished residency after 1995) were more likely to perform all types of laparoscopic procedures compared to older graduates (65% versus 29.7%, p < 0.001). Advanced procedures were also performed more frequently by recent graduates (52.5% versus 23.4%, p < 0.001). Of those who do not currently perform laparoscopy, 38.2% plan to learn in the future. The most common method of acquiring laparoscopic skills was with animal laboratory experience (39.4%), but only 20.9% relied solely on this method. A trip to a centre of excellence (28.5%) and training from an urologist at the same institution (25.7 %) was also commonly reported as methods of acquiring skills. There were 48.8% who reported beginning laparoscopic procedures without a mentor. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial portion of the Canadian urological community employs laparoscopy, although recent graduates are more likely to do so. Training methods in laparoscopy are variable, but a substantial portion of urologists begin practicing laparoscopic procedures without formal mentoring.

Unique methodological issues facing randomized controlled trials of endourologic procedures.

Randomized controlled trials provide the optimal design for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment but have not been widely accepted by surgical investigators. Although there are several methodological and ethical difficulties, none is insurmountable. In the United Kingdom, a regulatory agency has been established to supervise the introduction of new medical procedures, and something similar might be seen in the United States, particularly given the pressure from the government and third-party payors for proof of efficacy and cost effectiveness. Endourologists have responded to similar challenges in the past and must continue to do so.

Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy: a cost-utility analysis of the initial experience at a tertiary-care center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) offers donors more rapid postoperative recovery and recipients equivalent graft function when compared with open donor nephrectomy (OpenDN). Nonetheless, costs are less favorable for LapDN than for OpenDN. We compared LapDN and OpenDN with cost-utility analysis. METHODS: A decision analysis modeling approach was performed: utilities derived using time trade-off and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) techniques; probabilities derived from a systematic review of the literature. All costs were included from a societal perspective using actual cost data from OpenDN and LapDN patients performed contemporaneously between July 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000. Costs of lost employment were estimated using mean provincial annual earnings. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with "best-case" and "worst-case" scenarios for confidence intervals; sensitivity analyses were used to assess robustness. RESULTS: LapDN costs are higher ($10,317.40 vs. $9,853.70), while quality of life (QOL) is superior (0.7683 vs. 0.7062). The ICER from a societal perspective was C$7,471.11/QALY. If all donor nephrectomies nationally were performed laparoscopically, there would be an additional annual cost of C$665,240 with a societal gain of 24.84 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: LapDN offers improved QOL at marginally higher cost. A societal ICER of $7,471.11/QALY compares favorably to many accepted health-care interventions. By potentially increasing organ donor rates, LapDN may be cost saving by decreasing the number of patients on dialysis.