Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 27;18(1):271.
doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02032-3.

Robotic performance metrics model fellow proficiency in living donor nephrectomy

Affiliations

Robotic performance metrics model fellow proficiency in living donor nephrectomy

Jesse T Davidson 4th et al. J Robot Surg. .

Abstract

We investigated the use of robotic objective performance metrics (OPM) to predict number of cases to proficiency and independence among abdominal transplant fellows performing robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN). 101 RDNs were performed by 5 transplant fellows from September 2020 to October 2023. OPM included fellow percent active control time (%ACT) and handoff counts (HC). Proficiency was defined as ACT ≥ 80% and HC ≤ 2, and independence as ACT ≥ 99% and HC ≤ 1. Case number was significantly associated with increasing fellow %ACT, with proficiency estimated at 14 cases and independence at 32 cases (R2 = 0.56, p < 0.001). Similarly, case number was significantly associated with decreasing HC, with proficiency at 18 cases and independence at 33 cases (R2 = 0.29, p < 0.001). Case number was not associated with total active console time (p = 0.91). Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were not associated with OPM, except for donor estimated blood loss (EBL), which positively correlated with HC. Abdominal transplant fellows demonstrated proficiency at 14-18 cases and independence at 32-33 cases. Total active console time remained unchanged, suggesting that increasing fellow autonomy does not impede operative efficiency. These findings may serve as a benchmark for training abdominal transplant surgery fellows independently and safely in RDN.

Keywords: Living donor; Nephrectomy; Robotics; Surgery; Transplant.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 60:1047–1049 - PubMed
    1. Olumba FC, Vachharajani N, Yu J, Scherer M, Matson S, Hill AL, Kiani A, Lin Y, Doyle MMB, Chapman WC, Wellen JR, Khan AS (2023) Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 37:7511–7519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10246-z - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kok NFM, Lind MY, Hansson BME, Pilzecker D, Borg IR, Knipscheer BC, Hazebroek EJ, Dooper IM, Weimar W, Hop WCJ, Adang EMM, van der Wilt GJ, Bonjer HJ, van der Vliet JA, IJzermans JNM. (2006) Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ 333:221. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38886.618947.7C4 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Nicholson ML, Kaushik M, Lewis GRR, Brook NR, Bagul A, Kay MD, Harper SJ, Elwell R, Veitch PS (2010) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Br J Surg 97:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6803 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Khajeh E, Nikbakhsh R, Ramouz A, Majlesara A, Golriz M, Müller-Stich BP, Nickel F, Morath C, Zeier M, Mehrabi A (2023) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: superior outcomes after completion of the learning curve. J Robot Surg 17:2513–2526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01681-0 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources