Robotic performance metrics model fellow proficiency in living donor nephrectomy.

We investigated the use of robotic objective performance metrics (OPM) to predict number of cases to proficiency and independence among abdominal transplant fellows performing robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN). 101 RDNs were performed by 5 transplant fellows from September 2020 to October 2023. OPM included fellow percent active control time (%ACT) and handoff counts (HC). Proficiency was defined as ACT ≥ 80% and HC ≤ 2, and independence as ACT ≥ 99% and HC ≤ 1. Case number was significantly associated with increasing fellow %ACT, with proficiency estimated at 14 cases and independence at 32 cases (R2 = 0.56, p < 0.001). Similarly, case number was significantly associated with decreasing HC, with proficiency at 18 cases and independence at 33 cases (R2 = 0.29, p < 0.001). Case number was not associated with total active console time (p = 0.91). Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were not associated with OPM, except for donor estimated blood loss (EBL), which positively correlated with HC. Abdominal transplant fellows demonstrated proficiency at 14-18 cases and independence at 32-33 cases. Total active console time remained unchanged, suggesting that increasing fellow autonomy does not impede operative efficiency. These findings may serve as a benchmark for training abdominal transplant surgery fellows independently and safely in RDN.

The impact of a dedicated operating room team on robotic transplant program growth and fellowship training.

INTRODUCTION: Despite considerable interest in robotic surgery, successful incorporation of robotics into transplant programs has been challenging. Lack of a dedicated OR team with expertise in both robotics and transplant is felt to be a major barrier. This paper assesses the impact of a dedicated robotic transplant team (DART) on program growth and fellowship training at one of the largest robotic transplant programs in North America. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective review of all robotic operations performed on the transplant surgery service from October 2017 to October 2022. DART was incorporated in February 2020 and included transplant first assists (RFAs), scrub technologists and circulating nurses who received robotic training. Robotic experience before and after DART was compared to assess its impact on program growth and training. RESULTS: Four hundred and two robotic cases were performed by five transplant surgeons: 63 pre-DART and 339 post-DART. 40% of cases were transplant-related and 59.5%, HPB. There was a significant increase in case volume (2.5-10.6 cases/month, p < .0001) and complexity (36.5% vs. 70.3% high complexity cases, p < .0001) post-DART. RFA case coverage increased from 17% to 95%, and participation of transplant fellows as primary surgeons increased from 17% to 95% post-DART period (both p < .05). Conversion rates (9.5% vs. 4.1%) and room turn-around-times (TAT) (58.4 vs. 40.3 min) were lower post-DART (p < .05). There were no emergent conversions, conversions in transplant patients, or robot-related complications in either group. CONCLUSION: OR teams with expertise in robotics and transplant surgery can accelerate growth of robotic transplant programs while maintaining patient safety.

A novel assessment model for teaching robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy in abdominal transplant surgery fellowship.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of transplant centers have adopted robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy. Thus, a transplant fellow assessment tool is needed for promoting operative independence in an objective and safe manner. METHODS: In this pilot study, data was prospectively collected on both fellow performance with focus on technique, efficiency, and communication ("overall RO-SCORE"), and operative steps ("operative steps RO-SCORE"). Robotic user performance metrics were analyzed from the da Vinci Xi system, including fellow percent active control time (ACT) and handoff counts. RESULTS: From July 2020 to February 2021, twenty-one robot-assisted donor nephrectomies were performed. In regression analysis, fellow performance (based on both RO-SCOREs and robot % ACT) was significantly associated with both time and case number, with time-to-independence modelled at 8.4-14.2 months, and case number-to-independence estimated at 15-22 cases. Robot user metrics provided valid objective measures alongside RO-SCOREs. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study provides an effective assessment tool for promoting operative competency in robot-assisted donor nephrectomy among transplant fellows.

The learning curve of deceased donor liver transplant during fellowship training.

Liver transplantation (LT) is a complex operation that most transplant surgeons learn in fellowship. Training varies as there is lack of objective data that can be used to standardize teaching. We performed a retrospective review of our adult LT database with aim of looking at fellow's experience. Using American Society of Transplant Surgery cutoff of, at least 45 LT during fellowship, data for first 45 LT were compared to LT 45-90. Fellow's cases were also clustered in sequential groups of 15 LT and analyzed to estimate the learning curve (LC). Comparison of LT 1-45 with LT 46-90 showed significantly lower total operative times (TOT) (324 vs. 344 min) and warm ischemia times (WIT) (28 vs. 31 min) in the 45-90 group. Rates of biliary complications (23.8% vs. 16.4%) and bile leaks alone (10.3% vs. 5.5%) were significantly higher for first 45 LT. Analysis of fellows experience in sequential clusters of 15 LT showed decreasing TOT, WIT, biliary complications and rates of unplanned return to the OR with progression of fellowship. This study validates the current ASTS requirement of at least 45 LT. LC generated using these data can help individualize training and optimize outcomes through identification of areas in need of improvement.

Novel Method of Evaluating Liver Transplant Surgery Fellows Using Objective Measures of Operative Efficiency and Surgical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The majority of liver transplantations (LTs) in North America are performed by transplant surgery fellows with attending surgeon supervision. Although a strict case volume requirement is mandatory for graduating fellows, no guidelines exist on providing constructive feedback to trainees during fellowship. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of all adult LTs performed by abdominal transplant surgery fellows at a single American Society of Transplant Surgeons-accredited academic institution from 2005 to 2019 was conducted. Data from the most recent 5 fellows were averaged to generate reference learning curves for 8 variables representing operative efficiency (ie total operative time, warm ischemia time, and cold ischemia time) and surgical outcomes (ie intraoperative blood loss, unplanned return to the operating room, biliary complication, vascular complication, and patient/graft loss). Data for newer fellows were plotted against the reference curves at 3-month intervals to provide an objective assessment measure. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two adult LTs were performed by 5 fellows during the study period. Mean patient age was 56 years; 67% were male; and mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score at transplantation was 22. For the 8 primary variables, mean values included the following: total operative time 330 minutes, warm ischemia time 28 minutes, cold ischemia time 288 minutes, intraoperative blood loss 1.59 L, biliary complication 19.6%, unplanned return to operating room 19.3%, and vascular complication 2.3%. A structure for feedback to fellows was developed using a printed report card and through in-person meetings with faculty at 3-month intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative feedback using institution-specific reference curves can provide valuable objective data on progression of individual fellows. It can aid in the timely identification of areas in need of improvement, which enhances the quality of training and has the potential to improve patient care and transplantation outcomes.

Center-level Variation in HLA-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update.

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and "more than minimally manipulated" human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as "minimally manipulated tissue" and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States.

Time Is Money: Can Punctuality Decrease Operating Room Cost?

BACKGROUND: Inefficient operating room (OR) use wastes resources. Studies have suggested "first case on-time starts" (FCOTS) reduce OR "idle time," yet no direct association between FCOTS and markers of OR efficiency, like "last case on-time end" (LCOTE) or overtime costs, have been reported. We performed this study to evaluate factors associated with FCOTS, LCOTE, and OR overtime costs. STUDY DESIGN: In April 2017, our medical center launched an FCOTS improvement initiative. Prospectively collected data concerning cases performed in the 6-month pre- (October 2016 to March 2017) and post-intervention (October 2017 to March 2018) periods were retrospectively analyzed. Elective, nontraumatic cases performed by orthopaedics, gynecology, urology, minimally invasive surgery, or colorectal surgery were eligible. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate 3 outcomes of interest: the association between FCOTS and LCOTE (primary), the change in FCOTS rates after intervention implementation (secondary), and estimated overtime cost savings associated with FCOTS (secondary). RESULTS: We analyzed 12,073 cases (6,095 pre- vs 5,978 post-intervention) performed over 2,631 OR days (1,401 pre vs 1,230 post). The FCOTS rate increased after intervention (76.1% vs 86.6%, p < 0.001), with post-intervention cases twice as likely to start on time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.07; 95% CI 1.73 to 2.46, p < 0.001). Additionally, starting on time was associated with a higher likelihood of LCOTE (aOR 1.76; 95% CI 1.38 to 2.24, p < 0.001) and 21.8 fewer overtime minutes (95% CI 13.7 to 29.8, p < 0.001) per OR day. Post-intervention estimated savings of $87,954 in direct OR costs over 6 months were associated with the FCOTS initiative. CONCLUSIONS: The FCOTS initiative was associated with higher frequency of FCOTS, which was independently associated with LCOTE. This achieved an estimated 6-month cost savings of more than $80,000 in direct OR expenditures.

Cost Evaluation of a Donation after Cardiac Death Program: How Cost per Organ Compares to Other Donor Types.

BACKGROUND: Donation after cardiac death (DCD) is one method of organ donation. Nationally, more than half of evaluated DCD donors do not yield transplantable organs. There is no algorithm for predicting which DCD donors will be appropriate for organ procurement. Donation after cardiac death program costs from an organ procurement organization (OPO) accounting for all evaluated donors have not been reported. STUDY DESIGN: Hospital, transportation, and supply costs of potential DCD donors evaluated at a single OPO from January 2009 to June 2016 were collected. Mean costs per donor and per organ were calculated. Cost of DCD donors that did not yield a transplantable organ were included in cost analyses resulting in total cost of the DCD program. Donation after cardiac death donor costs were compared with costs of in-hospital donation after brain death (DBD) donors. RESULTS: There were 289 organs transplanted from 264 DCD donors evaluated. Mean cost per DCD donor yielding transplantable organs was $9,306. However, 127 donors yielded no organs, at a mean cost of $8,794 per donor. The total cost of the DCD program was $32,020 per donor and $15,179 per organ. Mean cost for an in-hospital DBD donor was $33,546 and $9,478 per organ transplanted. Mean organ yield for DBD donors was 3.54 vs 2.21 for DCD donors (p < 0.0001), making the cost per DBD organ 63% of the cost of a DCD organ. CONCLUSIONS: Mean cost per DCD donor is comparable with DBD donors, however, individual cost of DCD organs increases by almost 40% when all costs of an entire DCD program are included.

Transplant Center Volume and the Risk of Pancreas Allograft Failure.

BACKGROUND: Successful pancreas transplantation requires surgical expertise and multidisciplinary medical management. The impact of transplant center volume on pancreas allograft survival remains unclear. METHODS: We examined Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data on 11 568 simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) and 4308 solitary pancreas (pancreas transplant alone and pancreas after kidney) transplants between 2000 and 2013. RESULTS: Average annual transplant center volume was categorized by tertiles into low, medium, and high volume, respectively, as follows: 1 to 6 (n = 3861), 7 to 13 (n = 3891), and 14 to 34 (n = 3888) for SPK, and 1 to 3 (n = 1417), 4 to 10 (n = 1518), and 11 to 33 (n = 1377) for solitary pancreas transplants. Favorable donor characteristics were seen in low-volume centers. For SPK transplantation, low (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-1.8) and medium (aHR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44) center volumes were associated with a higher risk of early pancreas graft failure at 3 months. The increased risk associated with low center volume extended to 1, 5, and 10 years. For solitary pancreas transplants, low, but not medium, center volume was associated with a higher risk of early pancreas graft failure at 3 months (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.232-1.976), and this risk persisted over 10 years. Patients transplanted at high-volume centers had better pancreas survival rates across all categories of the Pancreas Donor Risk Index. CONCLUSION: On average, low center volume were associated with higher risk for pancreas failure. Future studies should seek to identify care processes that support optimal outcomes after pancreas transplantation irrespective of center volume.

Organ Donor Recovery Performed at an Organ Procurement Organization-Based Facility Is an Effective Way to Minimize Organ Recovery Costs and Increase Organ Yield.

BACKGROUND: A new era in organ donation with national redistricting is being proposed. With these proposals, costs of organ acquisition are estimated to more than double. Traditionally, organ recoveries occur in the donor hospital setting, incurring premium hospital expenses. The aim of the study was to determine organ recovery costs and organ yield for donor recoveries performed at an organ procurement organization (OPO) facility. STUDY DESIGN: In 2001, we established an OPO facility and in 2008 began transferring the donor expeditiously when brain death was declared. The OPO donor and hospital costs on a per donor basis were calculated. Donation after cardiac death donors cannot be transferred and were included in the hospital cost analysis. RESULTS: From January 2009 to December 2014, nine hundred and sixty-three donors originating in our OPO had organs recovered and transplanted. Seven hundred and sixty-six (79.5%) donors were transferred to the OPO facility 8.6 hours (range 0.6 to 23.6 hours) after declaration of brain death. Donor recovery cost was 51% less when donors were transferred to the OPO facility ($16,153 OPO recovery vs $33,161 hospital recovery; p < 0.0001). Organ yield was 27.5% better (3.43 organs) from OPO-recovered donors vs an organ yield of 2.69 from hospital-recovered donors (p < 0.0001). Standard criteria donor organ yield from our OPO was 6% higher than the national average (3.92 vs 3.7 nationally; p = 0.012) and expanded criteria donor organ yield was 18% higher (2.2 vs 1.87 nationally; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: An OPO facility for donor organ recovery increases efficiency and organ yield, reduces costs, and minimizes organ acquisition charge. As we face new considerations with broader sharing, increased efficiencies, cost. and organ use should be considered.

The Effect of State Policies on Organ Donation and Transplantation in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Shortages in transplantable solid organs remain a critical public health challenge in the United States. During the past 2 decades, all states have implemented policies to increase organ supply, although their effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects on organ donation and transplantation rates of state policies to provide incentives for volunteer donation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a quasi-experimental design and difference-in-differences regression analyses, we estimated the effect of policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on organ donors per capita and the number of transplantations from January 1, 1988, to December 31, 2010. Analyses were also stratified by type of donor (living vs deceased). Data were derived from the United Network for Organ Sharing. All data collection occurred between July 7 and September 27, 2013. EXPOSURES: Policies of interest were the presence of first-person consent laws, donor registries, dedicated revenue streams for donor recruitment activities, population education programs, paid leave for donation, and tax incentives. Information on states' passage of various policies was obtained from primary legislative and legal sources. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The number of organ donors and transplantations per state, per year, during the study period. RESULTS: From 1988 to 2010, the number of states passing at least 1 donation-related policy increased from 7 (14%) to 50 (100%). First-person consent laws, donor registries, public education, paid leave, and tax incentives had no robust, significant association with either donation rates or number of transplants. The establishment of revenue policies, in which individuals contribute to a protected state fund for donation promotion activities, was associated with a 5.3% increase in the absolute number of transplants (95% CI, 0.57%-10.1%; P = .03). These associations were driven by a 4.9% increase in organ donations (95% CI, 0.97%-8.7%; P = .01) and an 8.0% increase in transplants (95% CI, 3.1%-12.9%; P = .001) from deceased donors as opposed to changes among living donors or transplants from living donors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nearly all state-level policies to encourage organ donation have had no observable effect on the rate of organ donation and transplantation in the United States. The one exception was the establishment of revenue policies to promote organ donation, which may have led to small increases in organ donations and transplantations from deceased donors. New policy designs are needed to increase donation rates and curtail the widening gap between organ supply and demand.

Organ allocation in pediatric renal transplants: is there an optimal donor?

The 2005 revised allocation scheme for pediatric renal transplantation made the decision of whether to transplant an available living-donor (LD) kidney or use a deceased-donor (DD) kidney controversial. The aim of this study was to examine kidney allograft utilization, sensitization, and outcomes of pediatric transplant recipients. Between January 2000 and December 2009, 91 consecutive pediatric kidney recipients (<20 yr) were transplanted. The LD (n = 38) and DD (n = 53) groups were similar in age, gender, dialysis status at transplant, warm ischemia time, and overall patient survival. LD recipients were more likely to be Caucasian (92 vs. 69%), receive older allografts (39 ± 10 vs. 23 ± 9 yr), and have fewer human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches (3.3 ± 1.6 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5, p < 0.01 for all). Graft survival at one, three, and five yr post-transplant was longer for LD recipients (97%, 91%, 87% vs. DD 89%, 79%, 58%, respectively, p < 0.05). At the time of transplant, 17 (33%) DD recipients had an available LD (mean age 40 yr). A greater proportion of all patients were moderately (PRA 21-79%) sensitized post-transplant (p < 0.05). A multivariable analysis of graft survival indicated that the advantage in LD organs was likely due to fewer HLA mismatched in this group. Nonetheless, LD organs appear to provide optimal outcomes in pediatric renal transplants when considering the risk of becoming sensitized post-transplant complicating later use of the LD kidney.