RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Due to the rarity of pediatric diseases, collaborative research is the key to maximizing the impact of research studies. A research needs assessment survey was created to support initiatives to foster pediatric interventional radiology research. OBJECTIVE: To assess the status of pediatric interventional radiology research, identify perceived barriers, obtain community input on areas of research/education/support, and create metrics for evaluating changes/responses to programmatic initiatives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey link was sent to approximately 275 members of the Society for Pediatric Interventional Radiology (SPIR) between May and October 2020. Data was collected using a web-based interface. Data collected included practice setting, clinical role, research experience, research barriers, and suggestions for future initiatives. RESULTS: Fifty-nine surveys were analyzed with a staff physician survey response rate of 28% (56/198). A wide range of practice sizes from 15 countries were represented. Respondents were predominantly staff physicians (95%; 56/59) with an average of 11 years (range: 1-25 years) of clinical experience working at academic or freestanding children's hospitals. A total of 100% (59/59) had research experience, and 70% (41/58) had published research with a mean of 30 peer-reviewed publications (range: 1-200). For job security, 56% (33/59) of respondents were expected or required to publish, but only 19% (11/58) had research support staff, and 42% (25/59) had protected research time, but of those, 36% (9/25) got the time "sometimes or never." Lack of support staff, established collaborative processes, and education were identified as top barriers to performing research. CONCLUSIONS: The needs assessment survey demonstrated active research output despite several identified barriers. There is a widespread interest within the pediatric interventional radiology community for collaborative research.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: With the introduction of laparoscopy and now robotics, more patients are able to reap benefit from minimally invasive techniques during urologic surgery. With these advancing technologies, it is important to evaluate whether the outlay of hospital capital actually improves patient care. To date, there has been little literature regarding the impact of these advances on patient outcomes. In this article, we directly compare perioperative outcomes and hospital costs between the older da Vinci Standard/S/Si platform and the newer Xi robotic platform during nephroureterectomy. METHODS: A review of our robotic nephroureterectomy database between April 2009 and December 2017 identified 87 patients, 30 in group 1 (Xi) and 57 in group 2 (Standard/S/Si). Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative parameters as well as hospital costs were evaluated. Independent t-test was performed for continuous variables, while categorical variables were evaluated using chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups preoperatively. Operative time using the Xi was shorter, 184.4 vs 232.09 minutes (p = 0.0035). Other perioperative variables were similar. There was more lymphovascular invasion in group 2 (p = 0.0108), but there were higher stage tumors in group 1 (p < 0.0001). More patients underwent lymph node dissection in group 1 (p = 0.0186). Complications were similar between groups. Costs for anesthesia were less in group 1, which led to decreased total hospitalization costs (p < 0.001) Conclusion: Operative times were found to be less with the daVinci Xi, without any other significant difference in patient outcomes between the groups. Anesthesia and operating room cost were substantial factors in lowering the overall hospital costs. More multi-institutional studies with larger groups of patients are needed to determine if advancing technology really improves outcomes.