Does Urologist-level Utilization of Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer Correspond with Utilization of Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses?

Active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (CaP) or small renal masses (SRMs) helps in limiting the overtreatment of indolent malignancies. Implementation of AS for these conditions varies substantially across individual urologists. We examined the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry to assess for correlation of AS between patients with low-risk CaP and patients with SRM managed by individual urologists. We identified 27 urologists who treated at least ten patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk CaP and ten patients with SRMs between 2017 and 2021. For surgeons in the lowest quartile of AS use for low-risk CaP (<74%), 21% of their patients with SRMs were managed with AS, in comparison to 74% of patients of surgeons in the highest quartile (>90%). There was a modest positive correlation between the surgeon-level risk-adjusted proportions of patients managed with AS for low-risk CaP and for SRMs (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.48). A surgeon's tendency to use AS to manage one low-risk malignancy corresponds to their use of AS for a second low-risk condition. By identifying and correcting structural issues associated with underutilization of AS, interventions aimed at increasing AS use may have effects that influence clinical tendencies across a variety of urologic conditions. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer or small kidney masses varies greatly among individual urologists. Urologists who use AS for low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to use AS for patients with small kidney masses, but there is room to improve the use of AS for both of these conditions.

Upgrading on Per Protocol versus For Cause surveillance prostate biopsies: An opportunity to decreasing the burden of active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Most prostate cancer (PC) active surveillance (AS) protocols recommend "Per Protocol" surveillance biopsy (PPSBx) every 1-3 years, even if clinical and imaging parameters remained stable. Herein, we compared the incidence of upgrading on biopsies that met criteria for "For Cause" surveillance biopsy (FCSBx) versus PPSBx. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed men with GG1 PC on AS in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Surveillance prostate biopsies obtained 1 year after diagnosis were classified as either PPSBx or FCSBx. Biopsies were retrospectively deemed FCSBx if any of these criteria were met: PSA velocity > 0.75 ng/mL/year; rise in PSA > 3 ng from baseline; surveillance magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (sMRI) with a PIRADS ≥ 4; change in DRE. Biopsies were classified PPSBx if none of these criteria were met. The primary outcome was upgrading to ≥GG2 or ≥GG3 on surveillance biopsy. The secondary objective was to assess for the association of reassuring (PIRADS ≤ 3) confirmatory or surveillance MRI findings and upgrading for patients undergoing PPSBx. Proportions were compared with the chi-squared test. RESULTS: We identified 1773 men with GG1 PC in MUSIC who underwent a surveillance biopsy. Men meeting criteria for FCSBx had more upgrading to ≥GG2 (45%) and ≥GG3 (12%) compared with those meeting criteria for PPSBx (26% and 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Men with a reassuring confirmatory or surveillance MRI undergoing PPSBx had less upgrading to ≥GG2 (17% and 17%, respectively) and ≥GG3 (2.9% and 1.8%, respectively) disease compared with men without an MRI (31% and 7.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing PPSBx had significantly less upgrading compared with men undergoing FCSBx. Confirmatory and surveillance MRI seem to be valuable tools to stratify the intensity of surveillance biopsies for men on AS. These data may help inform the development of a risk-stratified, data driven AS protocol.

Utilization of a Virtual Tumor Board for the Care of Patients With Renal Masses: Experience From a Quality Improvement Collaborative.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary tumor board meetings are useful sources of insight and collaboration when establishing treatment approaches for oncologic cases. However, such meetings can be time intensive and inconvenient. We implemented a virtual tumor board within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative to discuss and improve the management of complicated renal masses. METHODS: Urologists were invited to discuss decision-making for renal masses through voluntary engagement. Communication was performed exclusively through email. Case details were collected and responses were tabulated. All participants were surveyed about their perceptions of the virtual tumor board. RESULTS: Fifty renal mass cases were reviewed in a virtual tumor board that included 53 urologists. Patients ranged from 20-90 years old and 94% had localized renal mass. The cases generated 355 messages, ranging from 2-16 (median 7) per case; 144 responses (40.6%) were sent via smartphone. All urologists (100%) who submitted to the virtual tumor board had their questions answered. The virtual tumor board provided suggestions to those with no stated treatment plan in 42% of cases, confirmed the physician's initial approach to their case in 36%, and offered alternative approaches in 16% of cases. Eighty-three percent of survey respondents felt the experience was "Beneficial" or "Very Beneficial," and 93% stated increased confidence in their case management. CONCLUSIONS: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative's initial experience with a virtual tumor board showed good engagement. The format reduced barriers to multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary discussions and improved the quality of care for selected patients with complex renal masses.

The Impact of a Statewide Active Surveillance Initiative: A Roadmap for Increasing Active Surveillance Utilization Nationwide.

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended as a management option for men with favorable-risk (low risk and favorable intermediate risk) prostate cancer; however, national rates remain low. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) established a quality improvement (QI) initiative in June 2014 to increase AS utilization. In this report, we analyze the rates of AS utilization over time in the state of Michigan (MUSIC) for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer and compare these to rates for other men diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer in the USA outside the state of Michigan. While the variables that influence AS utilization were the same in both cohorts, we found that the AS utilization rates and the rate of increase were significantly higher in MUSIC. We conclude that the QI initiative started in MUSIC should serve as a roadmap to increasing AS use nationwide. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance (AS), which involves close monitoring with blood tests and scans, is recommended for management of favorable-risk prostate cancer to avoid or delay unnecessary treatment. Our results show that a quality improvement program in Michigan increased AS use for prostate cancer patients in the state. This program should be used to increase AS uptake throughout the USA.

Appropriateness Criteria for Ureteral Stent Omission following Ureteroscopy for Urinary Stone Disease.

Objective: To bridge the gap between evidence and clinical judgement, we defined scenarios appropriate for ureteral stent omission after uncomplicated ureteroscopy (URS) using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). We retrospectively assessed rates of appropriate stent omission, with the goal to implement these criteria in clinical practice. Methods: A panel of 15 urologists from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) met to define uncomplicated URS and the variables that influence stent omission decision-making. Over two rounds, they scored clinical scenarios for Appropriateness Criteria (AC) for stent omission based on a combination of variables. AC were defined by median scores: 1 to 3 (inappropriate), 4 to 6 (uncertain), and 7 to 9 (appropriate). Multivariable analysis determined the association of each variable with AC scores. Uncomplicated URS cases in the MUSIC registry were assigned AC scores and stenting rates assessed. Results: Seven variables affecting stent decision-making were identified. Of the 144 scenarios, 26 (18%) were appropriate, 88 (61%) inappropriate, and 30 (21%) uncertain for stent omission. Most scenarios appropriate for omission were pre-stented (81%). Scenarios with ureteral access sheath or stones >10mm were only appropriate if pre-stented. Stenting rates of 5,181 URS cases correlated with AC scores. Stents were placed in 61% of cases appropriate for omission (practice range, 25% to 98%). Conclusion: We defined objective variables and AC for stent omission following uncomplicated URS. AC scores correlated with stenting rates but there was substantial practice variation. Our findings demonstrate that the appropriate use of stent omission is underutilized.

Evaluation of Patient- and Surgeon-Specific Variations in Patient-Reported Urinary Outcomes 3 Months After Radical Prostatectomy From a Statewide Improvement Collaborative.

Importance: Understanding variation in patient-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy may inform efforts to reduce morbidity after this procedure. Objective: To describe patient-reported urinary outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the diverse practice settings of a statewide quality improvement program and to explore whether surgeon-specific variations in observed outcomes persist after accounting for patient-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective population-based cohort study included 4582 men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative who underwent radical prostatectomy as primary management of localized prostate cancer between April 2014 and July 2018 and who agreed to complete validated questionnaires prior to surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Data were analyzed from 2019 to June 2019. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient- and surgeon-level analyses of patient-reported urinary function 3 months after radical prostatectomy. Outcomes were measured using validated questionnaires with results standardized using previously published methods. Urinary function survey scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 100 with good function established as a score of 74 or higher. Results: For the 4582 men undergoing radical prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative who agreed to complete surveys, mean (SD) age was 63.3 (7.1) years. Survey response rates varied: 3791 of 4582 (83%) responded at baseline, 3282 of 4137 (79%) at 3 months, 2975 of 3770 (79%) at 6 months, and 2213 of 2882 (77%) at 12 months. Mean (SD) urinary function scores were 88.5 (14.3) at baseline, 53.6 (27.5) at 3 months, 68.0 (25.1) at 6 months, and 73.7 (23.0) at 12 months. Regression analysis demonstrated that older age, lower baseline urinary function score, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher, clinical stage T2 or higher, and lack of bilateral nerve-sparing surgery were associated with a lower probability of reporting good urinary function 3 months after surgery. When evaluating patients with good baseline function, the rate at which individual surgeons' patients reported good urinary function 3 months after surgery varied broadly (0% to 54.5%; P < .001). Patients receiving surgery from top-performing surgeons were more likely to report good 3-month function. This finding persisted after accounting for patient risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient- and surgeon-level urinary outcomes following prostatectomy varied substantially. Documenting surgeon-specific variations after accounting for patient factors may facilitate identification of surgical factors associated with superior outcomes.

Partial nephrectomy should be classified as an inpatient procedure: Results from a statewide quality improvement collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To examine length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates for all minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and MI radical nephrectomy (MIRN) performed for localized renal masses ≤7 cm in size (cT1RM) within 12 Michigan urology practices. Both RN and PN are commonly performed in treating cT1RM. Although technically more complex and associated with higher complication rates, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services considers MIPN an outpatient procedure and MIRN is inpatient. METHODS: We collected data for renal surgeries for cT1RM at MUSIC-KIDNEY practices between May 2017-February 2020. Data abstractors recorded clinical, radiographic, pathologic, surgical, and short-term follow-up data into the registry for cT1RM patients. RESULTS: Within MUSIC-KIDNEY, 807 patients underwent MI renal surgery at 12 practices. Median LOS for cT1RM patients after MIPN (n = 531, 66%) was 2 days and after MIRN (n = 276, 34%) was also 2 days. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic PN, 171 (32%), 230 (43%), and 130 (24%) stayed ≤1, 2, ≥3 days. Among patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic RN, 81 (29%), 112 (41%), and 83 (30%) stayed ≤1, 2, ≥3 days. No significant difference was observed between MIPN and MIRN on LOS commensurate with outpatient surgery (≤1-day, OR = 0.97, P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of patients had a LOS ≤1-day and LOS was comparable for MIPN and MIRN. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should be advised that MIPN is a more complex surgery than MIRN, most patients receiving a MIPN will require a ≥2-day hospital stay and it would be more appropriate to classify MIPN an inpatient procedure with MIRN.

Delayed Urological Cancer Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Urologists' Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The arrival of coronavirus disrupted health care systems and forced delays in cancer treatment. We explored the experience of urologists who had to delay their patients' cancer care. METHODS: Urologists who treat prostate, bladder, and renal cancers, selected through purposive sampling, responded to a survey about cancer treatment delay. They were asked about their practice setting, decision making and interactions with patients, and they were asked to reflect on their personal experience. A 0 to 10 point scale, modeled on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network' Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), validated for cancer patients with cancer, was used to estimate physician distress. We used descriptive statistics to analyze survey results. RESULTS: Of the 64 participating urologists, 98% delayed surgical treatment; fewer delayed cases of advanced cancers (42% for ≥T3/T4 or Gleason ≥8 prostate cancers, 58% for muscle invasive bladder cancer, 61% for ≥T2 renal cancers). They reported feeling anxious (44%) and helpless (29%), and their median distress score was 5 (range 0-10). They relied on their own risk assessments (67%) and consulted colleagues (56%) and national guidelines (53%) when making treatment deferral decisions. They identified a number of concerns as they resumed surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a comparison to the NCCN-DT clinical cutoff distress level of 4, urologists experienced moderately high levels of distress as they delayed cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic and expressed concerns going forward. While the focus on patient care is paramount in a pandemic, it is important to recognize physician distress and develop practical and psychological strategies for distress mitigation.

Development and Validation of an Objective Scoring Tool for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Prostatectomy Assessment and Competency Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive training and skill acquisition by urological surgeons are vital to optimize surgical outcomes and patient safety. We sought to develop and validate PACE (Prostatectomy Assessment and Competence Evaluation), an objective and procedure specific tool to assess the quality of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Development and content validation of PACE was performed by deconstructing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy into 7 key domains utilizing the Delphi methodology. Reliability and construct validation were then assessed using de-identified videos performed by practicing surgeons and fellows. Consensus for each domain was defined as achieving a content validity index of 0.75 or greater. Reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation and construct validation using a mixed linear model accounting for multiple ratings on the same video. RESULTS: After 3 rounds consensus was reached on wording, relevance of the skills assessed and concordance between the score assigned and the skill assessed. An intraclass correlation of 0.4 or greater was achieved for all domains. The expert group outperformed trainees in all domains but reached statistical significance in bladder drop (4.5 vs 3.4, p = 0.002), preparation of the prostate (4.4 vs 3.2, p <0.0001), seminal vesicle and posterior plane dissection (8.3 vs 6.8, p = 0.03), and neurovascular bundle preservation (4.1 vs 2.4, p <0.0001). Limitations included the lack of assessment of other key skills such as communication and decision making. CONCLUSIONS: PACE is a structured, procedure specific and reliable tool that objectively measures surgical performance during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. It can differentiate different levels of expertise and provide structured feedback to customize training and surgical quality improvement.

Development, validation and clinical application of Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Assessment and Completion Evaluation: intraoperative assessment of lymph node dissection after robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a scoring tool, Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Appropriateness and Completion Evaluation (PLACE), to assess the intraoperative completeness and appropriateness of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) following robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A panel of 11 open and robotic surgeons developed the content and structure of PLACE. The PLND template was divided into three zones. In all, 21 de-identified videos of bilateral robot-assisted PLNDs were assessed by the 11 experts using PLACE to determine inter-rater reliability. Lymph node (LN) clearance was defined as the proportion of cleared LNs from all PLACE zones. We investigated the correlation between LN clearance and LN count. Then, we compared the LN count of 18 prospective PLNDs using PLACE with our retrospective series performed using the extended template (No PLACE). RESULTS: A significant reliability was achieved for all PLACE zones among the 11 raters for the 21 bilateral PLND videos. The median (interquartile range) for LN clearance was 468 (431-545). There was a significant positive correlation between LN clearance and LN count (R2 = 0.70, P < 0.01). The PLACE group yielded similar LN counts when compared to the No PLACE group. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Appropriateness and Completion Evaluation is a structured intraoperative scoring system that can be used intraoperatively to measure and quantify PLND for quality control and to facilitate training during RARC.

Measuring to Improve: Peer and Crowd-sourced Assessments of Technical Skill with Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

UNLABELLED: Because surgical skill may be a key determinant of patient outcomes, there is growing interest in skill assessment. In the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC), we assessed whether peer and crowd-sourced (ie, layperson) video review of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) could distinguish technical skill among practicing surgeons. A total of 76 video clips from 12 MUSIC surgeons consisted of one of four parts of RARP and underwent blinded review by MUSIC peer surgeons and prequalified crowd-sourced reviewers. Videos were rated for global skill (Global Evaluation Assessment of Robotic Skills) and procedure-specific skill (Robotic Anastomosis and Competency Evaluation). We fit linear mixed-effects models to estimate mean peer and crowd ratings for each video. Individual video ratings were aggregated to calculate surgeon skill scores. Peers (n=25) completed 351 video ratings over 15 d, whereas crowd-sourced reviewers (n=680) completed 2990 video ratings in 38 h. Surgeon global skill scores ranged from 15.8 to 21.7 (peer) and from 19.2 to 20.9 (crowd). Peer and crowd ratings demonstrated strong correlation for both global (r=0.78) and anastomosis (r=0.74) skills. The two groups consistently agreed on the rank order of lower scoring surgeons, suggesting a potential role for crowd-sourced methodology in the assessment of surgical performance. Lack of patient outcomes is a limitation and forms the basis of future study. PATIENT SUMMARY: We demonstrated the large-scale feasibility of assessing the technical skill of robotic surgeons and found that online crowd-sourced reviewers agreed with experts on the rank order of surgeons with the lowest technical skill scores.

Surgical competency for urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of the robotic anastomosis competency evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an assessment tool for the performance of urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA). METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted in 2 phases. Phase 1, development and content validation, used a panel of 5 experienced robotic surgeons to develop a 6-domain scoring system, Robotic Anastomosis Competence Evaluation (RACE), to assess technical skills for performing UVA. Phase 2, construct validation and reliability, used 5 blinded experienced robotic surgeons to rate UVA recordings of expert, advanced beginner, and novice groups. Content validation index was determined to report consensus in phase 1. Phase 2 involved comparison of RACE scores among the 3 groups. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare RACE scores. RESULTS: Two rounds of Delphi methodology achieved consensus on language and content of RACE. Eight experts, 10 advanced beginners, and 10 novice robotic surgeons participated in the validation study. The overall score for the expert group (27.3) was higher than that of the advanced beginner (19.5; P = .04) and novice groups (13.6; P = .001). The advanced beginner and novice groups differed in overall scores (P = .03). CONCLUSION: RACE allows evaluation of surgical competence to perform UVA for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, when using an inanimate model.

Insight into current surgical techniques and practice patterns associated with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a national survey of urologists within the USA.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been rapidly adopted throughout the USA. The purpose of this study is to describe the prevailing RARP operative techniques and perceptions within the USA. An anonymous web-based survey was sent electronically to a list of 920 robotic urological surgeons. The survey assessed surgeon demographics, surgical technique, and postoperative care related to RARP. The study was comprised of urologists from community hospitals (76%) and university hospitals/specialty centers (24%). All geographic sections of the American Urological Association were represented. The most common neurovascular preservation techniques were ante/retrograde approach (48%), athermal (22%), and preservation of lateral pelvic fascia (17%). Surgeon choice of neurovascular preservation technique varied with the average number of procedures performed per year (P = 0.0065). High-volume surgeons tended to require a higher number of robotic cases in order to go through the learning curve of the "comfortable" (P = 0.001) and "expert" levels (P < 0.0001). The majority of surgeons reported that RARP (as compared with open surgery) improved urinary continence (77.2%), sexual function (65.6%), and surgical margin rates (53.8%). RARP is an evolving surgical procedure with significant variability in practice patterns among US surgeons. Further studies are necessary to compare the various techniques in order to improve surgical outcomes.

Radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon comparison of retropubic, perineal, and robotic approaches.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of a single surgeon's experience with retropubic (RRP), perineal (RPP), and robotic assisted (RARP) radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Results from 150 radical prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon were compared. The groups consisted of the last 50 consecutive RRP (group 1) and RPP patients (group 2) and his first 50 RARP patients (group 3). He had significant experience in RRP and RPP and extensive training prior to performing RARP. The data was obtained from record review and patient survey. Patient demographics, operative parameters, pathological characteristics, complications, and functional outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: The groups were comparable with respect to patient demographics. Hospital stay, blood loss, and transfusion requirements were significantly better in the robotic group. Complications were least in the robotic group. Urinary continence (one pad or less) at 12 months was 96% in RRP, 96% in RPP, and 96% in RARP group. Positive surgical margins in organ confined disease were significantly lower for RARP although overall positive margins were similar. Potency data was still maturing and was not included in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There were no major differences in outcomes between the RRP and RPP groups. The RARP group had equal or better perioperative outcomes in all analyzed categories with the least complications. Urinary function outcomes were excellent in all groups. Prior open experience and extensive training facilitate encouraging outcomes for robotic prostatectomy even in a surgeon's initial series of patients.

da Vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is gaining acceptance as an alternative to open surgery for small renal tumours, although technical difficulty of intracorporeal suturing and concerns over warm ischemia time are limitations. Previous work has demonstrated that suturing with the robotic system is easier compared with laparoscopy. We believe the robot has an application and we report our initial experience in 10 patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy. METHODS: Ten patients with small exophytic renal masses underwent intraperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy. Principles of traditional open surgery were followed and intraoperative ultrasound was used to define resection margins. The renal artery was clamped with laparoscopic bulldog clamps and indigo carmine was administered intravenously to detect entry into collecting system. Suture closure and FLOSEAL were used for hemostasis. Frozen sections were obtained in all patients. RESULTS: Seven men and three women, mean age 59 yr, underwent robotic partial nephrectomy. Mean tumour size was 2 cm. Mean console and warm ischemia time were 158 min and 21 min, respectively. The median hospital stay was 1.5 d. Pathology revealed renal cell carcinoma in eight, oncocytoma in one, and lipoma in one. All resection margins were negative. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 28 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic partial nephrectomy is a viable alternative to open or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in carefully selected patients with small renal tumours. The advantages of the robotic system must be weighed against its cost. Further studies will determine if reduction in procedure complexity warrants the expense of such technology.

Robotic-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy: technical difficulties due to a large median lobe.

The case of a robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a patient with a 143-gram prostate with a large median lobe is reported. The aim of the study was to delineate the difficulties and concern when confronted with such a situation. The technical difficulties, possible preventive methods, correction and management are discussed briefly with the hope of aiding urologists when performing radical prostatectomy in patients with large median lobe prostates.

Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills.

PURPOSE: We investigated the impact of robotics on surgical skills by comparing traditional laparoscopy with the da Vinci Surgical System in the performance of various laparoscopic training drills. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one surgeons performed eight timed drills of increasing difficulty with a laparoscopic trainer and the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Sunnyvale, CA). The mean time to drill completion, drill time variance, and statistical analysis were performed. Surgeons were also questioned about their perception of the robotic technology following completion of the drill series. RESULTS: The mean time required to complete the first drill was 69 seconds with laparoscopy and 57 seconds with the robotic system. The mean times for drill two were 67 seconds with laparoscopy and 44 seconds with robotics; for drill three, the times were 88 seconds for laparoscopy and 61 seconds for robotics, and for drill four, 186 seconds with laparoscopy and 71 seconds with robotics. Only the first drill failed to show a statistically significant difference between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic system allowed surgeons to complete drills faster than traditional laparoscopy. Novice laparoscopic surgeons performed three of the four drills faster robotically than did expert laparoscopic surgeons. These findings may indicate that the attributes of the robotic system level the playing field between surgeons of different skill levels. The next generation of surgeons must focus on this evolving technology and its application in the operating room of the future.