Journals / Journal of Urological Surgery / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4

Complications of Robotic Surgery in Urology: Our Experience of 342 Procedures Including the Learning Curve

Ürolojide Robotik Cerrahi Komplikasyonları: Öğrenme Eğrisini de Kapsayan 342 Hastalık Deneyimimiz

Pages
194–198
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall complication rate was 9.4%.The number of minor complications was 20 (62.5%), and the number of major complications was 12 (37.5%).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the complications of all robot-assisted surgeries performed in our clinic and to investigate the effectof the learning curve on complications occurred.Materials and Methods: Data on a total of 342 robotic surgeries performed in our clinic between March 2015 and February 2018 was retrospectivelyanalyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the experience of robotic surgery, the complications were divided into two groups as those occurred inthe first 18 months (March 2015-August 2016) and in the second 18 months (September 2016-February 2018).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall complication rate was 9.4%.The number of minor complications was 20 (62.5%), and the number of major complications was 12 (37.5%).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the complications of all robot-assisted surgeries performed in our clinic and to investigate the effectof the learning curve on complications occurred.Materials and Methods: Data on a total of 342 robotic surgeries performed in our clinic between March 2015 and February 2018 was retrospectivelyanalyzed. Two surgeons, who performed the surgery, were experienced in urological laparoscopic procedures. Intraoperative and postoperativecomplications were evaluated. According to the experience of robotic surgery, the complications were divided into two groups as those occurred inthe first 18 months (March 2015-August 2016) and in the second 18 months (September 2016-February 2018). The complications were classifiedaccording to the Clavien-Dindo classification.Results: A total of 32 complications occurred in 31 of 342 patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery. The overall complication rate was 9.4%.The number of minor complications was 20 (62.5%), and the number of major complications was 12 (37.5%). Among all, 6.2% were intraoperativecomplications, 62.5% were postoperative complications, and 31.3% were medical complications. It was observed that the number of complicationswas plateaued after August 2016 and there was a statistically significant difference between the first and the second 18 months (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı kliniğimizde uygulanan tüm robot yardımlı ameliyatlardaki komplikasyonları analiz etmek ve öğrenme eğrisinin komplikasyon gelişimi üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Mart 2015 ile Şubat 2018 arasında kliniğimizde uygulanan toplam 342 robotik cerrahinin verileri analiz edildi. İki cerrah da ürolojik laparoskopik cerrahide deneyimliydi. İntraoperatif ve postoperatif komplikasyonlar değerlendirildi. Robotik cerrahi deneyimine göre ilk 18 ayda (Mart 2015-Ağustos 2016) ve ikinci 18 ayda (Eylül 2016-Şubat 2018) karşılaşılan komplikasyonlar olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Komplikasyonlar Clavien-Dindo sınıflamasına göre kategorize edildi. Bulgular: Robotik cerrahi yapılan 342 hastanın 31’inde, toplam olarak 32 komplikasyon gelişti. Toplam komplikasyon oranı %9,4 idi. Minör komplikasyonların sayısı 20 (%62,5), majör komplikasyonların sayısı 12 (%37,5) idi. Tüm komplikasyonların %6,2’sini intraoperatif komplikasyonlar, %62,5’ini postoperatif komplikasyonlar, %31,3’ünü medikal komplikasyonlar oluşturmaktaydı. Komplikasyon sayılarının Ağustos 2016’dan sonra plato çizdiği görüldü ve ilk 18 ay ile son 18 ay arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (p

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIZ, A., ATEŞ, M., AKTAŞ, Y., SAVAŞ, M., İSLAMOĞLU, E., ANIL, H., KARAMIK, K. (2022). Complications of Robotic Surgery in Urology: Our Experience of 342 Procedures Including the Learning Curve. Journal of Urological Surgery, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 4, 194–198. https://ajindex.com/articles/568759

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738- 1741. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001;87:408-410.
  2. Kural AR, Atuğ F. The applications of robotic surgery in urology. Turk J Urol 2010;36:248-257.
  3. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187-196.
  4. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
  5. Kasabwala K, Patel NA, Hu JC. Review of optimal techniques for roboticassisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol 2018;28:102-107. Cadeddu JA. Re: da Vinci Xi and Si Platforms Have Equivalent Perioperative Outcomes during Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Preliminary Experience. The Journal of Urology. 2017.
  6. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol 2010;57:196- 201. Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, Stifelman MD. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2008;180:1391-1396.
  7. Torer BD, Ekşi M, Kargi T, Sokmen D, Simsek A, Evren I, Tugcu V. Retrospective Analysis of Factors Affecting Continence after Robotic Radical Prostatectomy. JAREM 2017;7:21-26.
  8. Canda AE, Özcan MF, Akbulut Z, Atmaca AF, Özdemir AT, Balbay MD. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy and intracorporeal studer urinary diversion. Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci 2008;15:117-124.
  9. Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Karrison T, Patel SG, Eggener SE. Comparison of Perioperative and Early Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in a Contemporary Population Based Cohort. J Urol 2016;196:76-81.
  10. Tang JQ, Zhao Z, Liang Y, Liao G. Robotic-assisted versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: A meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trails. Int J Med Robot 2018;14. Reynolds CR, Delto JC, Paulucci DJ, Weinstein C, Badani K, Eun D, Abaza