Analysis of Operating Room Efficiency During Robot-Assisted Urologic Surgeries Utilizing Fixed (Nonprocedural) Operative Times

Geldmaker, Laura E.; Hasse, Christopher H.; Baird, Bryce; Haehn, Daniela A.; Anyane-Yeboah, Abena N.; Wieczorek, Mikolaj; Ball, Colleen; Dora, Chandler D.; Lyon, Timothy D.; Thiel, David D.

doi:10.1089/end.2021.0673

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Total operating room time was broken into fixed and variable time points (Fig. 1 ) [ 4 ]. Fixed OR times were defined as in-room time to anesthesia-release time (IRAT), anesthesia-release time to cut time (ARCT), in-room time to cut time (IRCT: a combination of IRAT and ARCT), and close time to wheels-out time (CTWO).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IRAT in-room to anesthesia-release time, ARCT anesthesia release to cut time, IRCT in- room to cut time, CTCT cut to close time, CTWO close to wheels-out time. Reprinted with permission from the Journal of Endourology [ 4 ] …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…OR efficiency is often looked at through the perspective of evaluating surgeon operating time, although non-procedural OR time may contribute more to total operating time in urologic surgery than initially realized. A recent study demonstrated that fixed operating room time points made up a significant portion of total procedure time in robotic-assisted urologic surgery (up to 49% in some cases) [ 4 ]. Thus, efforts to optimize OR efficiency, including potential differences between open and robotic-assisted procedures, must take into account both procedural and non-procedural times.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of fixed and variable operating room (or) time point efficiency in partial nephrectomies: open versus robotic-assisted

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To analyze operating room (OR) efficiency by evaluating fixed and variable OR times for open (OPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomies (RAPN). We analyzed consecutive OPN and RAPN performed by one surgeon over a 24-month period. All patients were placed in the lateral decubitus position and secured with a beanbag regardless of approach. Fixed (non-procedural) OR times were prospectively collected and defined as: in-room to anesthesia-release time (IRAT), anesthesia release to cut time (ARCT), and close to wheels-out time (CTWO). Variable OR time was procedural cut to close time (CTCT). Comparisons of fixed and variable OR time points between OPN and RAPN were performed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. 146 RAPN and 31 OPN were evaluated from 2019–2020. Median IRAT was similar for RAPN versus OPN [20 min (IQR: 16–25) vs. 20 min (IQR: 16–26), P = 0.57]. Median ARCT was longer for RAPN than it was for OPN [40 min (IQR: 36–46) vs. 34 min (IQR: 30–39), P < 0.001]. Median CTWO was similar for OPN (12 min, IQR: 9–14) and RAPN (11 min, IQR: 7–15) ( P = 0.89). Median CTCT was longer for RAPN (202 min, IQR: 170–236) compared to OPN (164 min, IQR: 154–184) ( P < 0.001). In a single surgeon, partial nephrectomy series with the same patient positioning, utilization of robotic technology was associated with longer surgeon operating time as well as less efficient fixed OR times, specifically ARCT.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation