Cargando…

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons

OBJECTIVE: To document the learning curve for the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) procedure and discuss the optimal usage of prospectively documented outcome data for reporting a surgeon’s performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from the first series of patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mason, Sarah, Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, Chandra, Ashish, Brown, Christian, Cahill, Declan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cancer Intelligence 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4970620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563346
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2016.651
_version_ 1782445992488992768
author Mason, Sarah
Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
Chandra, Ashish
Brown, Christian
Cahill, Declan
author_facet Mason, Sarah
Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
Chandra, Ashish
Brown, Christian
Cahill, Declan
author_sort Mason, Sarah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To document the learning curve for the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) procedure and discuss the optimal usage of prospectively documented outcome data for reporting a surgeon’s performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from the first series of patients to undergo LRP by two surgeons in the same institution, linear and logistic regression multivariate analyses per 25 patients were carried out to graphically represent the surgical learning curve for operative time, blood loss, complications, length of stay (LOS), and positive margins. Surgeon A carried out 275 operations between 2003–2009; Surgeon B carried out 225 between 2008–2012. RESULTS: Learning curves showing continuous improvement of each of the above outcomes were demonstrated for both cohorts. For surgeon A, a plateau was observed for LOS and T2 positive margins after 100 and 150 surgeries respectively. No such plateau was observed for surgeon B. CONCLUSION: On documenting these learning curves and discussion of the reporting methods used, we concluded that the most informative outcome measure, with the least potential observer bias was T2 positive margins. Whether as a single measure or in combination with others, this has potential for use as an objective outcome representative of improvement in a surgeon’s skill over time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4970620
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Cancer Intelligence
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49706202016-08-25 Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons Mason, Sarah Van Hemelrijck, Mieke Chandra, Ashish Brown, Christian Cahill, Declan Ecancermedicalscience Research OBJECTIVE: To document the learning curve for the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) procedure and discuss the optimal usage of prospectively documented outcome data for reporting a surgeon’s performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from the first series of patients to undergo LRP by two surgeons in the same institution, linear and logistic regression multivariate analyses per 25 patients were carried out to graphically represent the surgical learning curve for operative time, blood loss, complications, length of stay (LOS), and positive margins. Surgeon A carried out 275 operations between 2003–2009; Surgeon B carried out 225 between 2008–2012. RESULTS: Learning curves showing continuous improvement of each of the above outcomes were demonstrated for both cohorts. For surgeon A, a plateau was observed for LOS and T2 positive margins after 100 and 150 surgeries respectively. No such plateau was observed for surgeon B. CONCLUSION: On documenting these learning curves and discussion of the reporting methods used, we concluded that the most informative outcome measure, with the least potential observer bias was T2 positive margins. Whether as a single measure or in combination with others, this has potential for use as an objective outcome representative of improvement in a surgeon’s skill over time. Cancer Intelligence 2016-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4970620/ /pubmed/27563346 http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2016.651 Text en © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Mason, Sarah
Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
Chandra, Ashish
Brown, Christian
Cahill, Declan
Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
title Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
title_full Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
title_fullStr Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
title_short Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
title_sort laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon’s performance be reported? a retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4970620/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27563346
http://dx.doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2016.651
work_keys_str_mv AT masonsarah laparoscopicradicalprostatectomyoutcomedatahowshouldsurgeonsperformancebereportedaretrospectivelearningcurveanalysisoftwosurgeons
AT vanhemelrijckmieke laparoscopicradicalprostatectomyoutcomedatahowshouldsurgeonsperformancebereportedaretrospectivelearningcurveanalysisoftwosurgeons
AT chandraashish laparoscopicradicalprostatectomyoutcomedatahowshouldsurgeonsperformancebereportedaretrospectivelearningcurveanalysisoftwosurgeons
AT brownchristian laparoscopicradicalprostatectomyoutcomedatahowshouldsurgeonsperformancebereportedaretrospectivelearningcurveanalysisoftwosurgeons
AT cahilldeclan laparoscopicradicalprostatectomyoutcomedatahowshouldsurgeonsperformancebereportedaretrospectivelearningcurveanalysisoftwosurgeons