Use of Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE) for assessment of surgical competency during urethrovesical anastomosis.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the Robotic Anastomosis Competency Evaluation (RACE), a validated tool that objectively quantifies surgical skills specifically for urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA), as a tool to track progress of trainees, and to determine the predictive value of RACE. METHODS: UVAs performed by trainees at our institution were evaluated using RACE over a period of two years. Trainees were supervised by an experienced robotic surgeon. Outcomes included trainee-related variables (RACE score, proportion of UVA performed by trainee, and suturing speed), and clinical outcomes (total UVA duration, postoperative urinary continence, and UVA-related complications). Significance was determined using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 51 UVAs performed by six trainees were evaluated. Trainee RACE scores (19.8 to 22.3; p=0.01) and trainee proportion of UVA (67% to 80%; p=0.003) improved significantly over time. Trainee suture speed was significantly associated with RACE score (mean speed range 0.54-0.74 sutures/minute; p=0.03). Neither urinary continence at six weeks nor six months was significantly associated with RACE score (p=0.17 and p=0.15, respectively), and only one UVA-related postoperative complication was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee RACE scores improved and proportion of UVA performed by trainees increased over time. RACE can be used as an objective measure of surgical performance during training. Strict mentor supervision allowed safe training without compromising patient outcomes.

Variability and interpretation of communication taxonomy during robot-assisted surgery: do we all speak the same language?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and analyse the different ways surgeons communicate with bedside assistants during robot-assisted surgery (RAS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed video and audio recordings of 26 RAS procedures (23 prostatectomies and three cystectomies). Three cameras and eight lapel microphones were used to record the operating theatre environment. We identified five common tasks and categorized them into 'specific', 'non-specific' and 'unclear' categories. We also determined the frequency, time to execute the task, inconveniences and acknowledgements associated with each category. The most efficient category was the one that took the shortest duration to accomplish and was associated with the fewest inconveniences. RESULTS: A total of 1 000 requests were made by three surgeons for six bedside assistants by three surgeons. The five identified tasks were: instrument change; clipping; suction; irrigation; and retraction. For instrument change, non-specific requests were the most frequent compared with the other categories (77% vs 18% vs 5%; P < 0.001). For suction, specific requests were the most frequently used of the three categories (73% vs 27% vs 0%; P < 0.001) and this task was associated with the fewest inconveniences (38% vs 62%; P = 0.01). For clipping, irrigation and retraction, both specific and non-specific requests were similar in terms of their frequency, action time and inconveniences. Comparing complete vs incomplete requests, incomplete requests had significantly shorter median action time (5 vs 8 s; P < 0.001) but did not significantly differ in terms of inconveniences and acknowledgement. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide a detailed analysis of communication during RAS. It lays a foundation for standardized taxonomy to improve communication, surgical efficiency and patient safety.