0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Surgeon Skill and Perioperative Outcomes in Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is surgeon technical skill associated with perioperative outcomes for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy?

          Findings

          In this quality improvement study that included peer assessments of surgical skill for 10 urological surgeons, higher technical skill was associated with lower rates of extended hospital stay, high estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, 30-day emergency department visits, and 30-day readmissions. Higher annual partial nephrectomy volume was associated with higher technical skill.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that video-based evaluation plays a beneficial role in assessing surgical skill and should be considered in quality improvement initiatives to improve patient care.

          Abstract

          This quality improvement study assesses whether surgeon scores representing technical skills of robot-assisted kidney surgery are associated with patient outcomes.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Technical skill in complex surgical procedures may affect clinical outcomes, and there is growing interest in understanding the clinical implications of surgeon proficiency levels.

          Objectives

          To determine whether surgeon scores representing technical skills of robot-assisted kidney surgery are associated with patient outcomes.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This quality improvement study included 10 urological surgeons participating in a surgical collaborative in Michigan from July 2021 to September 2022. Each surgeon submitted up to 7 videos of themselves performing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Videos were segmented into 6 key steps, yielding 127 video clips for analysis. Each video clip was deidentified and distributed to at least 3 of the 24 blinded peer surgeons from the collaborative who also perform robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Reviewers rated technical skill and provided written feedback. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2023 to January 2024.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Reviewers scored each video clip using a validated instrument to assess technical skill for partial nephrectomy on a scale of 1 to 5 (higher scores indicating greater skill). For all submitting surgeons, outcomes from a clinical registry were assessed for length of stay (LOS) greater than 3 days, estimated blood loss (EBL) greater than 500 mL, warm ischemia time (WIT) greater than 30 minutes, positive surgical margin (PSM), 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, and 30-day readmission.

          Results

          Among the 27 unique surgeons who participated in this study as reviewers and/or individuals performing the procedures, 3 (11%) were female, and the median age was 47 (IQR, 39-52) years. Risk-adjusted outcomes were associated with scores representing surgeon skills. The overall performance score ranged from 3.5 to 4.7 points with a mean (SD) of 4.1 (0.4) points. Greater skill was correlated with significantly lower rates of LOS greater than 3 days (−6.8% [95% CI, −8.3% to −5.2%]), EBL greater than 500 mL (−2.6% [95% CI, −3.0% to −2.1%]), PSM (−8.2% [95% CI, −9.2% to −7.2%]), ED visits (−3.9% [95% CI, −5.0% to −2.8%]), and readmissions (−5.7% [95% CI, −6.9% to −4.6%]) ( P < .001 for all). Higher overall score was also associated with higher partial nephrectomy volume (β coefficient, 11.4 [95% CI, 10.0-12.7]; P < .001).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this quality improvement study on video-based evaluation of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, higher technical skill was associated with lower rates of adverse clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that video-based evaluation plays a role in assessing surgical skill and can be used in quality improvement initiatives to improve patient care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process

          Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this manuscript, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasises the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value and safety of healthcare: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve healthcare, recognising that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (http://www.squire-statement.org).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery.

            Clinical outcomes after many complex surgical procedures vary widely across hospitals and surgeons. Although it has been assumed that the proficiency of the operating surgeon is an important factor underlying such variation, empirical data are lacking on the relationships between technical skill and postoperative outcomes. We conducted a study involving 20 bariatric surgeons in Michigan who participated in a statewide collaborative improvement program. Each surgeon submitted a single representative videotape of himself or herself performing a laparoscopic gastric bypass. Each videotape was rated in various domains of technical skill on a scale of 1 to 5 (with higher scores indicating more advanced skill) by at least 10 peer surgeons who were unaware of the identity of the operating surgeon. We then assessed relationships between these skill ratings and risk-adjusted complication rates, using data from a prospective, externally audited, clinical-outcomes registry involving 10,343 patients. Mean summary ratings of technical skill ranged from 2.6 to 4.8 across the 20 surgeons. The bottom quartile of surgical skill, as compared with the top quartile, was associated with higher complication rates (14.5% vs. 5.2%, P<0.001) and higher mortality (0.26% vs. 0.05%, P=0.01). The lowest quartile of skill was also associated with longer operations (137 minutes vs. 98 minutes, P<0.001) and higher rates of reoperation (3.4% vs. 1.6%, P=0.01) and readmission (6.3% vs. 2.7%) (P<0.001). The technical skill of practicing bariatric surgeons varied widely, and greater skill was associated with fewer postoperative complications and lower rates of reoperation, readmission, and visits to the emergency department. Although these findings are preliminary, they suggest that peer rating of operative skill may be an effective strategy for assessing a surgeon's proficiency.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.

              Although the relation between hospital volume and surgical mortality is well established, for most procedures, the relative importance of the experience of the operating surgeon is uncertain. Using information from the national Medicare claims data base for 1998 through 1999, we examined mortality among all 474,108 patients who underwent one of eight cardiovascular procedures or cancer resections. Using nested regression models, we examined the relations between operative mortality and surgeon volume and hospital volume (each in terms of total procedures performed per year), with adjustment for characteristics of the patients and other characteristics of the providers. Surgeon volume was inversely related to operative mortality for all eight procedures (P=0.003 for lung resection, P<0.001 for all other procedures). The adjusted odds ratio for operative death (for patients with a low-volume surgeon vs. those with a high-volume surgeon) varied widely according to the procedure--from 1.24 for lung resection to 3.61 for pancreatic resection. Surgeon volume accounted for a large proportion of the apparent effect of the hospital volume, to an extent that varied according to the procedure: it accounted for 100 percent of the effect for aortic-valve replacement, 57 percent for elective repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, 55 percent for pancreatic resection, 49 percent for coronary-artery bypass grafting, 46 percent for esophagectomy, 39 percent for cystectomy, and 24 percent for lung resection. For most procedures, the mortality rate was higher among patients of low-volume surgeons than among those of high-volume surgeons, regardless of the surgical volume of the hospital in which they practiced. For many procedures, the observed associations between hospital volume and operative mortality are largely mediated by surgeon volume. Patients can often improve their chances of survival substantially, even at high-volume hospitals, by selecting surgeons who perform the operations frequently. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                15 July 2024
                July 2024
                15 July 2024
                : 7
                : 7
                : e2421696
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Michigan
                [2 ]Department of Urology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
                [3 ]Michigan Urological Clinic, Grand Rapids
                [4 ]Corewell Health Hospital System, Grand Rapids, Michigan
                [5 ]Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: May 7, 2024.
                Published: July 15, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.21696
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Wang Y et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Craig G. Rogers, MD, Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health, 2799 W Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI 48202 ( crogers2@ 123456hfhs.org ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Lane and Rogers had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Wang and Wilder contributed equally.
                Concept and design: Wilder, Mirza, Maatman, Lane, Ghani, Rogers.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Wang, Wilder, Hijazi, Myles, Mirza, Van Til, Maatman.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Wang, Wilder, Hijazi, Myles, Rogers.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Wang, Wilder, Mirza, Van Til, Maatman, Lane, Ghani, Rogers.
                Statistical analysis: Wang, Wilder, Hijazi Van Til, Maatman.
                Obtained funding: Ghani.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Wilder, Mirza, Maatman, Ghani.
                Supervision: Mirza, Maatman, Lane, Rogers.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Ghani reported grants from Coloplast, Patient Centered Outcomes Institute, and Boston Scientific and was a consultant for Coloplast, Ambu, Olympus, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: MUSIC is funded by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBMS) as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Additional Contributions: The authors acknowledge the substantial contributions of the clinic champions, urologists, administrators, and data abstractor in each participating MUSIC practice (details around specific participating urologists and practices can be found at https://www.musicurology.com), as well as members of the MUSIC Coordinating Center at the University of Michigan. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support provided by the Value Partnerships program at BCBSM.
                Article
                zoi240687
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.21696
                11250260
                39008300
                69a14e46-5acd-4219-be80-12bc42d5b992
                Copyright 2024 Wang Y et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 11 January 2024
                : 7 May 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Urology

                Comments

                Comment on this article