To our knowledge, ours is the first study to show that APMs and ML algorithms may help assess surgical RARP performance and predict clinical outcomes. With further accrual of clinical data (oncologic and functional data), this process will become increasingly relevant and valuable in surgical assessment and training.
ResultsContinence was attained in 79 patients (79%) after a median of 126 days. The DL model achieved a C-index of 0.6 and an MAE of 85.9 in predicting continence. APMs were ranked higher by the model than clinicopathological features. In the historical cohort, patients in Group 1/APMs had superior rates of urinary continence at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (47.5 vs 36.7%, P = 0.034, and 68.3 vs 59.2%, P = 0.047, respectively).
ConclusionUsing APMs and clinicopathological data, the DeepSurv DL model was able to predict continence after RARP. In this feasibility study, surgeons with more efficient APMs achieved higher continence rates at 3 and 6 months after RARP.Keywords robotic surgical procedures, prostatectomy, artificial intelligence, urinary incontinence, quality of life
MSA in patients with large hiatal hernias demonstrates decreased postoperative PPI requirement and mean GERD-HRQL scores compared to patients with smaller hernias. The incidence of symptom resolution or improvement and the percentage of patients requiring intervention for dysphagia are similar. Short-term outcomes of MSA are encouraging in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and large hiatal hernias.
No universally accepted robotic skills assessment currently exists. The purpose of assessment (training or credentialing) may dictate whether manual or automated surgeon assessment is more suitable. Moving forward, assessment tools must be objective and efficient to facilitate the training and credentialing of competent surgeons.
ObjectivesTo evaluate automated performance metrics (APMs) and clinical data of experts and super-experts for four cardinal steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): bladder neck dissection; pedicle dissection; prostate apex dissection; and vesico-urethral anastomosis.
Subjects and MethodsWe captured APMs (motion tracking and system events data) and synchronized surgical video during RARP. APMs were compared between two experience levels: experts (100-750 cases) and super-experts (2100-3500 cases). Clinical outcomes (peri-operative, oncological and functional) were then compared between the two groups. APMs and outcomes were analysed for 125 RARPs using multi-level mixed-effect modelling.
ResultsFor the four cardinal steps selected, super-experts showed differences in select APMs compared with experts (P < 0.05). Despite similar PSA and Gleason scores, super-experts outperformed experts clinically with regard to peri-operative outcomes, with a greater lymph node yield of 22.6 vs 14.9 nodes, respectively (P < 0.01), less blood loss (125 vs 130 mL, respectively; P < 0.01), and fewer readmissions at 30 days (1% vs 13%, respectively; P = 0.02). A similar but nonsignificant trend was seen for oncological and functional outcomes, with super-experts having a lower rate of biochemical recurrence compared with experts (5% vs 15%, respectively; P = 0.13) and a higher continence rate at 3 months (36% vs 18%, respectively; P = 0.14).
ConclusionWe found that experts and super-experts differed significantly in select APMs for the four cardinal steps of RARP, indicating that surgeons do continue to improve in performance even after achieving expertise. We hope ultimately to identify associations between APMs and clinical outcomes to tailor interventions to surgeons and optimize patient outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.