|
Introduction: After performing 1,000 robotic prostatectomies we reflected back on our experience to determine what defined the learning curve and the essential elements that were the keys to surmounting it. Method: We retrospectively assessed our experience to attempt to define the learning curve(s), key elements of the procedure, technical refinements and changes in technology that facilitated our progress. Result: The initial learning curve to achieve basic competence and the ability to smoothly perform the procedure in less than 4 hours with acceptable outcomes was approximately 25 cases. A second learning curve was present between 75-100 cases as we approached more complicated patients. At 200 cases we were comfortably able to complete the procedure routinely in less than 2.5 hours with no specific step of the procedure hindering our progression. At 500 cases we had the introduction of new instrumentation (4th arm, biopolar Maryland, monopolar scissors) that changed our approach to the bladder neck and neurovascular bundle dissection. The most challenging part of the procedure was the bladder neck dissection. Conclusion: There is no single parameter that can be used to assess or define the learning curve. We used a combination of factors to make our subjective definition this included: operative time, smoothness of technical progression during the case along with clinical outcomes. The further our case experience progressed the more we expected of our outcomes, thus we continually modified our technique and hence embarked upon yet a new learning curve.
|
