Learning curves of minimally invasive donor nephrectomy in a high-volume center: A cohort study of 1895 consecutive living donors.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the learning curves of minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (MIDN) using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. In addition, no study has compared the learning curves of the different surgical MIDN techniques in one cohort study using the CUSUM analysis. This study aims to evaluate and compare learning curves for several MIDN using the CUSUM analysis. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive donors, who underwent MIDN between 1997 and 2019, was conducted. Three laparoscopic-assisted techniques were applied in our institution and included for analysis: laparoscopic (LDN), hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RADN) donor nephrectomy. The outcomes were compared based on surgeon volume to develop learning curves for the operative time per surgeon. RESULTS: Out of 1895 MIDN, 1365 (72.0%) were LDN, 427 (22.5%) were HARP, and 103 (5.4%) were RADN. The median operative time and median blood loss were 179 (IQR, 139-230) minutes and 100 (IQR, 40-200) mL, respectively. The incidence of major complication was 1.2% with no mortality, and the median hospital stay was three (IQR, 3-4) days. The CUSUM analysis resulted in learning curves, defined by decreased operative time, of 23 cases in LDN, 45 cases in HARP, and 26 cases in RADN. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows different learning curves in three MIDN techniques with equal post-operative complications. The LDN and RADN learning curves are shorter than that of the hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. Our observations can be helpful for informing the development of teaching requirements for fellows to be trained in MIDN.

Selective clamping hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: A novel technique.

Purpose: In this study, we described our initial experience and analyze the learning curve of segmental renal artery branch clamping with hand-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (PN) using special instruments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic PN (LPN) between May 2015 and April 2018. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, perioperative details, postoperative complications, and warm ischemic time for segmental artery branch clamping were included in our analysis. We used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves. Results: Segmental renal artery branch clamping was successfully completed in 16 of 20 patients. The median tumor size was 2.9 cm (range, 1.7-7.0 cm), median operation time was 185 minutes (range, 140-245 minutes), median blood loss was 291 mL (range, 100-600 mL), and median hospital stay was 5 days (range, 4-7 days). The median selective ischemic time was 21 minutes (range, 16-35 minutes). No patient had postoperative complications, acute or delayed bleeding. The median pre- and postoperative serum creatinine levels (0.91 and 0.98 mg/dL, respectively), and the pre- and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (89.7 and 79.6 mL/min per 1.73 m2, respectively) were similar. Upon visual assessment of the CUSUM plots, a downward inflection point for decreasing total operation time was observed in the 9th case and estimated blood loss in the 12th case. Conclusions: Our study shows that segmental renal artery branch clamping hand-assisted LPN for localized renal tumors is feasible, safe, and has a relatively short learning curve.

Initial Experience With Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Training and Clinical Practice as a General Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: To analyze our initial results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, executed by a skilled gastrointestinal surgeon. METHODS: A total of 22 consecutive patients underwent the hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between December 2014 and January 2017. We retrospectively analyze the patient's perioperative clinical data, which were collected prospectively. RESULTS: The right kidney was harvested in 12 patients. The mean operative time and intraoperative blood loss was 241.0 ± 43.4 minutes (range, 140-310 min) and 293.2 ± 203.1 mL (range, 50-700 mL), respectively. The mean warm ischemic time was 288.4 ± 103.4 seconds (range, 179-610 s). Postoperative complications included chyle leakage in 2 patients who were left kidney donors and oliguria in 1 patient who was a right kidney donor. All patients recovered with conservative care, and the mean hospital stay was 7.5 ± 1.7 days. The mean creatinine level was 0.7 ± 0.2 mg/dL before surgery, 1.1 ± 0.3 mg/dL at postoperative day (POD) 1, and 1.0 ± 0.2 mg/dL after discharge. The mean glomerular filtration rate was 97.9 ± 18.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 before surgery, 60.7 ± 10.4 at POD 1, and 67.3 ± 11.1 after discharge. Operation time was not associated with patient body mass index and case number. No significant differences, other than postoperative complications, were found in the perioperative data for the side of kidney donation. CONCLUSION: A skilled surgeon with experience in laparoscopic abdominal surgery (such as gastrectomy or colectomy) might safely perform hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. However, we could not identify a clear case number to complete the learning curve.

Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND In this study, we analyzed the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). MATERIAL AND METHODS The first 198 consecutive donors (110 cases by expert surgeon and 88 cases by newbie surgeon) operated on using HALDN were included in this study. The primary outcome measures were warm ischemic time (WIT), total operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcome measures included length of hospital stay (LOS), graft outcome, and surgery-related complications. We used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves. RESULTS Except for WIT, all operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar for the 2 groups, including the total operation time (174.13 minutes vs. 171.75 minutes, P=0.140), EBL (108.27 cc vs. 116.82 cc, P=0.494), LOS (4.80 days vs. 4.92 days, P=0.144), and overall rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05). A significant difference was observed in WIT between the 2 groups (140.59 sec vs. 106.85 sec, P=0.027). Upon visual assessment of the CUSUM plots, a downward inflexion point for decreasing WIT was observed in 4 cases, total operation time in 12 cases, and EBL in 15 cases. CONCLUSIONS HALDN has a relatively short learning curve and similar results may be expected from newbie urologists who are trained in minimally invasive surgery fellowship.

Hand-assisted Approach as a Model to Teach Complex Laparoscopic Hepatectomies: Preliminary Results.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are limited and scarce models to teach complex liver resections by laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to present a hand-assisted technique to teach complex laparoscopic hepatectomies for fellows in liver surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic hand-assisted approach for resections of liver lesions located in posterosuperior segments (7, 6/7, 7/8, 8) was performed by the trainees with guidance and intermittent intervention of a senior surgeon. Data as: (1) percentage of time that the senior surgeon takes the surgery as main surgeon, (2) need for the senior surgeon to finish the procedure, (3) necessity of conversion, (4) bleeding with hemodynamic instability, (5) need for transfusion, (6) oncological surgical margins, were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 12 cases of complex laparoscopic liver resections were performed by the trainee. All cases included deep lesions situated on liver segments 7 or 8. The senior surgeon intervention occurred in a mean of 20% of the total surgical time (range, 0% to 50%). A senior intervention >20% was necessary in 2 cases. There was no need for conversion or reoperation. Neither major bleeding nor complications resulted from the teaching program. All surgical margins were clear. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary report shows that hand-assistance is a safe way to teach complex liver resections without compromising patient safety or oncological results. More cases are still necessary to draw definitive conclusions about this teaching method.

Effects of Hand Dominance and Postural Selection on Muscle Activities of Virtual Laparoscopic Surgical Training Tasks.

This study investigated how the ergonomic factors, such as hand dominance and postural selection, influenced on surgical performance regarding the changes of muscle activity. Twenty novices performed two virtual laparoscopic surgical training tasks and five target muscle activities were measured. Compared with using dominant hand, surgical skills performance using non-dominant hand increased muscle activities. Muscle fatigue is more likely induced in standing position than sitting position during practice. This study suggests an emerging need to focus on hand dominance during laparoscopic surgical training to address the impact of hand discrepancy on bimanual coordination. It is also important to pay attention on postural selection during training to reduce muscle fatigue, which possibly leads to injuries.

Laparoscopic hand-assisted versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: experience of 103 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy has become a stand-alone procedure in the treatment of morbid obesity. There are very few reports on the use of robotic approach in sleeve gastrectomy. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective study is to report our early experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RALSG) using a proctored training model with comparison to an institutional cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic hand-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (LASG). SETTINGS: University hospital. METHODS: The study included 108 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy either via the laparoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted approach during the study period. Of these 108 patients, 62 underwent LASG and 46 underwent RALSG. The console surgeon in the RALSG is a clinical year 4 (CY4) surgery resident. All CY4 surgery residents received targeted simulation training before their rotation. The console surgeon is proctored by the primary surgeon with assistance as needed by the second surgeon. RESULTS: The patients in the robotic and laparoscopic cohorts did not have a statistical difference in their demographic characteristics, preoperative co-morbidities, or complications. The mean operating time did not differ significantly between the 2 cohorts (121 min versus 110 min, P = .07). Patient follow-up in the LSG and RALSG were 91% and 90% at 3 months, 62% and 64% at 6 months, and 60% and 55% at 1 year, respectively. The mean percentage estimated weight loss (EWL%) at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year was greater in the robotic group but not statistically significant (27 versus 22 at 3 mo [P = .05] and 39 versus 34 at 6 mo [P = .025], 57 versus 48 at 1 yr [P = .09]). There was no mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: Early results of our experience with RALSG indicate low perioperative complication rates and comparable weight loss with LASG. The concept of a stepwise education model needs further validation with larger studies.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. DESIGN: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models. SETTING: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve.

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on a training simulator: what is the difference? A stepwise comparison of hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy performance on an augmented reality simulator.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that simulator-generated metrics and intraoperative errors may be able to differentiate the technical differences between hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) and straight laparoscopic (SL) approaches. METHODS: Thirty-eight trainees performed two laparoscopic sigmoid colectomies on an augmented reality simulator, randomly starting by a SL (n = 19) or HAL (n = 19) approach. Both approaches were compared according to simulator-generated metrics, and intraoperative errors were collected by faculty. RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of surgeons were experienced (>50 procedures) with open colon surgery. Fifty-five percent and 69% of surgeons were inexperienced (<10 procedures) with SL and HAL colon surgery, respectively. Time (P < 0.001), path length (P < 0.001), and smoothness (P < 0.001) were lower with the HAL approach. Operative times for sigmoid and splenic flexure mobilization and for the colorectal anastomosis were significantly shorter with the HAL approach. Time to control the vascular pedicle was similar between both approaches. Error rates were similar between both approaches. Operative time, path length, and smoothness correlated directly with the error rate for the HAL approach. In contrast, error rate inversely correlated with the operative time for the SL approach. CONCLUSIONS: A HAL approach for sigmoid colectomy accelerated colonic mobilization and anastomosis. The difference in correlation between both laparoscopic approaches and error rates suggests the need for different skills to perform the HAL and the SL sigmoid colectomy. These findings may explain the preference of some surgeons for a HAL approach early in the learning of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is associated with enhanced depth perception in novices.

BACKGROUND: The visual information obtained in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and total laparoscopy is based on two-dimensional depth cues. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that intracorporeal hand improves depth perception in HALS. METHODS: Ten subjects were divided into two groups using HALS or total laparoscopy. The first task was passing a 10-cm thread through four small metallic loops five times; the second was tying 30 square three-throw intracorporeal laparoscopic knots. End points were (1) number of past pointing as an index of movement accuracy and reflection of depth perception, (2) execution time, and (3) knot quality score. RESULTS: The HALS group was significantly faster than total laparoscopy with a median (interquartile range (IQR)) of 117 s (75.5) vs. 179 s (235.5; P = 0.001) for the thread passing task and 97 s (43.3) vs. 130 s (68.3; P < 0.0005) for knot tying. The number of past-pointing events was significantly lower with HALS compared with total laparoscopy with a median (IQR) of 12 (8) vs. 23 (24; P = 0.001) for the thread passing task and 7 (5) vs. 13 (10; P < 0.0005) for knot tying. There was a significant main effect of whether the targeted object was in contact with the other instrument in knot tying task when past-pointing occurred (P = 0.031). No difference in a knot quality score was found between the HALS and total laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of instrument movement was significantly better in the HALS group compared with total laparoscopy. The study confirmed the hypothesis that intracorporeal hand improves depth perception in HALS. Also, the touch of the assisting instrument with the target object enhances spatial orientation in the laparoscopic operative field. However, further study is needed to test the hypothesis in experts.