RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Within the last decades, robotic surgery has gained popularity. Most robotic surgeons have changed their main surgical activity from open or laparoscopic without prior formal robotic training. With the current practice, it is of great interest to know whether there is a transfer of surgical skills. In visualization, motion scaling, and freedom of motion, robotic surgery resembles open surgery far more than laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, our hypothesis is that open-trained surgeons have more transfer of surgical skills to robotic surgery, compared to surgeons trained in laparoscopy. METHODS: Thirty-six surgically inexperienced medical students were randomized into three groups for intensive simulation training in an assigned modality: open surgery, laparoscopy, or robot-assisted laparoscopy. The training period was, for all study subjects, followed by performing a robot-assisted bowel anastomosis in a pig model. As surrogate markers of surgical quality, the anastomoses were tested for resistance to pressure, and video recordings of the procedure were evaluated by two blinded expert robotic surgeons, using a global rating scale of robotic operative performance (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS)). RESULTS: The mean leak pressure of bowel anastomosis was 36.25 (7.62-64.89) mmHg in the laparoscopic training group and 69.01 (28.02-109.99) mmHg in the open surgery group, and the mean leak pressure for the robotic training group was 108.45 (74.96-141.94) mmHg. The same pattern was found with GEARS as surrogate markers of surgical quality. GEARS score was 15.71 (12.37-19.04) in the laparoscopic training group, 18.14 (14.70-21.58) in the open surgery group, and 22.04 (19.29-24.79) in the robotic training group. In comparison with the laparoscopic training group, the robotic training group had a statistically higher leak pressure (p = 0.0015) and GEARS score (p = 0.0023). No significant difference, for neither leak pressure nor GEARS, between the open and the robotic training group. CONCLUSION: In our study, training in open surgery was superior to training in laparoscopy when transitioning to robotic surgery in a simulation setting performed by surgically naive study subjects.
RESUMEN
Objectives: To assess the oncological outcome of recryoablation following failure of primary cryoablation in patients with small renal masses (SRMs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of 72 patients with a single renal tumor who failed primary laparoscopy-assisted cryoablation (LCA). All patients were initially treated with LCA at one of three European centers during a 12-year period. Results: A total of 38 patients (53%) were successfully salvaged with reablation(s) following treatment failure after primary LCA, having a median follow-up time of 28 (95% CI 19-105) months. Patients who failed recryoablation with additional cryoablation (n = 11), active surveillance (n = 11), oncological treatment (n = 7), partial nephrectomy/nephrectomy (n = 5), and follow-up terminated according to patient request (n = 4). The disease-free survival was significantly higher for patients retreated with CT-guided cryoablation compared with other cryoablative modalities (57% vs 31%, p = 0.046). Conclusion: Recryoablation following failure of primary cryoablation appears to have a significantly lower success rate compared with what is well known from primary cryoablation of SRM, but does not carry and increase risk of metastatic progression. CT-guided recryoablation appears to be superior to laparoscopy-assisted or ultrasonography recryoablation.
