|
|
The application of virtual reality training for anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy |
Fubo Wanga,Chao Zhanga,Fei Guoa,Xia Shenga,Jin Jia,Yalong Xua,Zhi Caoa,Ji Lyua,Xiaoying Lub,*(),Bo Yanga,*()
|
a Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China b Department of Nursing, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China |
|
|
Abstract Objective To investigate the application of virtual reality training in vesicourethral anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Methods Three certified robotic urologists who underwent virtual reality training were enrolled in the study group. The other three without training were enrolled in the control group. Parameters were recorded before and after the training. Then a total of 18 patients undergoing RARP were enrolled and randomized assigned to receive anastomosis procedures with certified urologists who either obtained or did not obtain training. The quality of the anastomosis was evaluated. Results For the virtual training evaluation, the overall score was significantly improved from 65.0±10.8 to 92.7±3.5 (p=0.014); the time of anastomosis was shortened; the economy of motion improved; instrument collisions decreased after training (p<0.05). Besides, the effectiveness of the virtual training was evaluated in the 18 real anastomosis procedures which were completed either by three urologists with training or three urologists without training. Most intriguingly, the average time of anastomosis was shortened from 40.0±12.4 min to 25.1±7.1 min (p=0.015). The parameters including time of operation, creatinine level of drainage, postoperative hospital stay and duration of catheter drainage were comparable before and after training. Two leakages, which were observed in procedures by doctors without training, needed salvage sutures by a senior doctor. Conclusions Virtual reality training enabled surgeons to become quickly familiar with robotic system manipulation, improved their skills for vesicourethral anastomosis and shortened the learning curve, thus helping them operate with high efficacy and quality.
|
Received: 18 October 2018
Available online: 04 December 2019
|
Corresponding Authors:
Xiaoying Lu,Bo Yang
E-mail: luxiaoyingjoy@163.com;yangbochanghai@126.com
|
|
|
Variable | Without training (n=9) | Training (n=9) | p-Value | Age (year) | 67.8±4.9 | 65.1±5.6 | 0.302 | Serum PSA (ng/mL) | 12.5±4.6 | 12.2±4.1 | 0.232 | Prostate volume (cm3) | 33.3±5.9 | 35.3±9.8 | 0.618 | BMI (kg/m2) | 23.3±2.3 | 24.2±2.0 | 0.401 | Clinical stage (%) | 0.672 | T1c | 3 (33.3) | 2 (22.2) | | T2a | 3 (33.3) | 4 (44.4) | | T2b | 2 (22.2) | 3 (33.3) | | T2c | 1 (11.1) | 0 (0) | | Gleason score (%) | 0.492 | 6 | 1 (11.1) | 2 (22.2) | | 7 | 7 (77.8) | 6 (66.7) | | 8 | 1 (11.1) | 0 (0) | | 9-10 | 0 (0) | 1 (11.1) | |
|
Baseline variables in 18 patients undergoing RARP.
|
Parameter | 1st training | 20th training | p-Value | Overall score | 65.0±10.8 | 92.7±3.5 | 0.014 | Time of anastomosis (s) | 279.0±48.0 | 119.3±12.5 | 0.005 | Economy of motion (cm) | 459.0±59.2 | 239.3±33.9 | 0.008 | Instrument collisions | 7.0±2.0 | 1.3±1.5 | 0.018 | Instrument out of view | 0±0 | 0±0 | >0.05 | Missed targets | 4.7±0.6 | 3.3±1.2 | 0.148 |
|
Parameters before and after the virtual reality training.
|
Parameter | Without training | Training | p-Value | Time of anastomosis (min) | 40.0±12.4 | 25.1±7.1 | 0.015 | Time of operation (min) | 162.2±26.3 | 144.2±24.2 | 0.162 | Estimated blood loss (mL) | 121.1±40.14 | 130.0±55.22 | 0.701 | Blood transfusion | 0 | 0 | N/A | Creatinine of drainage (μmoI/L) | 66.7±11.5 | 63.8±13.1 | 0.545 | Postoperative hospital stay (day) | 4.2±1.0 | 3.6±1.1 | 0.111 | Duration of catheter drainage (day) | 4.3±0.5 | 3.8±0.8 | 0.095 |
|
Parameters with and without the virtual reality training.
|
[1] |
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2018 2018; 68:7e30.
|
[2] |
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1:screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65:124e37.
|
[3] |
Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87:408e10.
|
[4] |
Czudek S. Robotic surgeryda taste of Hollywood? Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2013; 8:95e8.
|
[5] |
Tou S, Bergamaschi R, Heald RJ, Parvaiz A. Structured training in robotic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2015; 17:185.
doi: 10.1111/codi.12898
pmid: 25678329
|
[6] |
Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP, Schijven MP, Verheijen RH. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 2012; 119:137e49.
|
[7] |
Cumpanas AA, Bardan R, Ferician OC, Latcu SC, Duta C, Lazar FO. Does previous open surgical experience have any influence on robotic surgery simulation exercises? Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2017; 12:366e71.
|
[8] |
Wiener S, Haddock P, Shichman S, Dorin R. Construction of a urologic robotic surgery training curriculum: how many simulator sessions are required for residents to achieve proficiency? J Endourol 2015; 29:1289e93.
|
[9] |
Finnegan K, Meraney AM, Staff I, Shichman SJ. Da Vinci skills simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 2012; 80:330e5.
|
[10] |
Schommer E, Patel VR, Mouraviev V, Thomas C, Thiel DD. Diffusion of robotic technology into urologic practice has led to improved resident physician robotic skills. J Surg Educ 2017; 74:55e60.
|
[11] |
Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S, Lusch A, Graversen J, Landman J, et al. Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci TrainerTM and the da Vinci Surgical Skills SimulatorTM using the MimicTM software for urologic robotic surgical education. J Endourol 2012; 26:1629e34.
|
[12] |
Thiel DD, Patel VR, Larson T, Lannen A, Leveillee RJ. Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the Southeastern Section of the American Urologic Association. J Surg Educ 2013; 70:571e7.
|
[13] |
Shetty S, Zevin B, Grantcharov TP, Roberts KE, Duffy AJ. Perceptions, training experiences, and preferences of surgical residents toward laparoscopic simulation training: a resident survey. J Surg Educ 2014; 71:727e33.
|
[1] |
Mengzhu Liu,Kun Jin,Shi Qiu,Pengyong Xu,Mingming Zhang,Wufeng Cai,Xiaonan Zheng,Lu Yang,Qiang Wei. Oncological outcomes of patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate receiving radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(2): 227-234. |
[2] |
Marcio Covas Moschovas,Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat,Fikret Fatih Onol,Travis Rogers,Gabriel Ogaya-Pinies,Shannon Roof,Vipul R. Patel. Single-port technique evolution and current practice in urologic procedures[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(1): 100-104. |
[3] |
Zepeng Jia,Yifan Chang,Yan Wang,Jing Li,Min Qu,Feng Zhu,Huan Chen,Bijun Lian,Meimian Hua,Yinghao Sun,Xu Gao. Sustainable functional urethral reconstruction: Maximizing early continence recovery in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(1): 126-133. |
[4] |
Anup Kumar,Vipul R. Patel,Sridhar Panaiyadiyan,Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat,Marcio Covas Moschovas,Brusabhanu Nayak. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Current perspectives[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(1): 2-13. |
[5] |
Weibin Xie, Junming Bi, Qiang Wei, Ping Han, Dongkui Song, Lei Shi, Dingwei Ye, Yijun Shen, Xin Gou, Weiyang He, Shaogang Wang, Zheng Liu, Jinhai Fan, Kaijie Wu, Zhiwen Chen, Xiaozhou Zhou, Chuize Kong, Yang Liu, Chunxiao Liu, Abai Xu, Baiye Jin, Guanghou Fu, Wei Xue, Haige Chen, Tiejun Pan, Zhong Tu, Tianxin Lin, Jian Huang. Survival after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Multicenter comparison between minimally invasive and open approaches[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2020, 7(3): 291-300. |
[6] |
Anne Holck Storås,Martin G. Sanda,Olatz Garin,Peter Chang,Dattatraya Patil,Catrina Crociani,Jose Francisco Suarez,Milada Cvancarova,Jon Håvard Loge,Sophie D. Fosså. A prospective study of patient reported urinary incontinence among American, Norwegian and Spanish men 1 year after prostatectomy[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2020, 7(2): 161-169. |
[7] |
Bohdan Baralo,Patrick Samson,David Hoenig,Arthur Smith. Percutaneous kidney stone surgery and radiation exposure: A review[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2020, 7(1): 10-17. |
[8] |
Kerri Beckmann,Michael O’Callaghan,Andrew Vincent,Penelope Cohen,Martin Borg,David Roder,Sue Evans,Jeremy Millar,Kim Moretti. Extent and predictors of grade upgrading and downgrading in an Australian cohort according to the new prostate cancer grade groupings[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(4): 321-329. |
[9] |
Yifan Chang,Xiaojun Lu,Qingliang Zhu,Chuanliang Xu,Yinghao Sun,Shancheng Ren. Single-port transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (spRALP): Initial experience[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(3): 294-297. |
[10] |
Hendrik van Poppel , Wouter Everaerts , Lorenzo Tosco, Steven Joniau. Open and robotic radical prostatectomy[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(2): 125-128. |
[11] |
Najib Isse Dirie, Gaurab Pokhrel , Wei Guan, Mukhtar Adan Mumin, Jun Yang, Jackson Ferdinand Masau, Henglong Hu, Shaogang Wang. Is Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy associated with better functional and oncological outcomes? Literature review and meta-analysis[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(2): 174-182. |
[12] |
Allert M.de Vries*,John P.F.A.Heesakkers. Contemporary diagnostics and treatment options for female stress urinary incontinence[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(3): 141-148. |
[13] |
Shulian Chen,Rang Gao,Hong Li,Kunjie Wang. Management of acquired rectourethral fistulas in adults[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(3): 149-154. |
[14] |
Chen Kenneth,Sim Allen,Kan Alex Ford. The effect of adjunct caudal block on postoperative analgesia in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective randomized controlled, single blinded pilot study in a tertiary centre[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(2): 122-126. |
[15] |
Antonio B. Porcaro, Nicolò de Luyk, Paolo Corsi, Marco Sebben, Alessandro Tafuri, Davide Inverardi, Davide De Marchi, Irene Tamanini, Matteo Brunelli, Maria Angela Cerruto, Gian Luca Salvagno, Gian Cesare Guidi, Walter Artibani. Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy accelerates postoperative stress recovery: Final results of a contemporary prospective study assessing pathophysiology of cortisol peri-operative kinetics in prostate cancer surgery[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2016, 3(2): 88-95. |
|
|
|
|