Abstract
Purpose
Video assessment is an emerging tool for understanding surgical technique. Patient outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) may be linked to technical aspects of the procedure. In an effort to refine surgical approaches and improve outcomes, we sought to understand technical variation for the key steps of RARP in a surgical collaborative.
Methods
The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) is a statewide quality improvement collaborative with the aim of improving prostate cancer care. MUSIC surgeons were invited to submit representative complete videos of nerve-sparing RARP for blinded analysis. We also analyzed peri-operative outcomes from these surgeons in the registry.
Results
Surgical video data from 20 unique surgeons identified many variations in technique and time to complete different steps. Common to all surgeons was a transperitoneal approach and a running urethrovesical anastomosis. Prior to anastomosis, 25% surgeons undertook a posterior reconstruction and 30% employed urethral suspension. 65% surgeons approached the seminal vesicle anteriorly. For control of the dorsal vein complex, suture ligation was used in 60%, and vascular stapler was 15%. The majority (80%) of surgeons employed clips for managing pedicles. In examining patient outcomes for surgeons, peri-operative outcomes were not correlated with surgeon’s operative time; however, surgeons with an EBL > 400 ml had significant difference among the five different techniques employed.
Conclusions
Despite the worldwide popularity of RARP, the operation is still far from standardized. Correlating variation in technique with clinical outcomes may help provide objective data to support best practices with the goal to improve patient outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the mainstay surgical treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer in the United States [1]. Contemporary data now support equal to superior results with robotic-assisted approach compared to traditional open surgery [2]. Despite the widespread adoption RARP over the last decade, a clear understanding of the variation in the technique remains to be established. Moreover, patient outcomes may be linked to the technical aspects of the surgery [3]; however, the assessment and comparison of data may be hindered by a lack of knowledge of the various techniques currently in use.
Robotic and laparoscopic systems afford more feasibility to capture and review surgical videos of all steps of a procedure. Surgical video review is an emerging technique that allows a greater understanding of the technical aspects of surgery, and has important implications for surgical training, quality improvement, and lifelong learning [4, 5]. De-identified, unedited videos allow for blinded, unbiased review. The Michigan Urological Surgical Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) group has previously reported the use of expert peer surgeon and layperson crowd-sourced review to assess the technical skills of qualified urological surgeons performing key steps of RARP [6]. However, this prior study lacked consideration of the technical variations among surgeons. Although a surgeon’s skill may play a role in the success and outcome of surgery, surgical technique presents another unique variable that may influence outcomes.
To better understand the technical variation present in modern day RARP, we analyzed complete surgical videos of RARP performed by surgeons in a statewide collaborative. Our goals were to classify the key steps of RARP and understand those techniques that are more universally adopted or widely vary among surgeons, a cornerstone to well established surgical procedures with better outcomes.
Methods
Data source
The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative is a statewide quality improvement consortium funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan comprising of 44 diverse community and academic practices representing 260 urologists in the State of Michigan. The goal of MUSIC is to improve the quality and cost efficiency of prostate cancer care for men in Michigan. Urologists participating in the collaborative were asked to voluntarily submit a representative video of nerve-sparing RARP for the purposes of surgical video review and technique evaluation.
Study design
Video review was completed after unedited videos were stripped of patient and performing surgeon identifiers. The duration to complete major steps of the surgery was recorded systematically into a database by one independent video abstractor, who had experience of watching > 100 RARP cases in the operating room. The major steps of RARP were analyzed according to eight key steps: (1) bladder takedown; (2) endopelvic fascia incision; (3) dorsal venous complex control; (4) bladder neck dissection; (5) seminal vesicle dissection; (6) nerve sparing and pedicle control (including posterior dissection); (7) apical dissection; and (8) urethrovesical anastomosis (including posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction or urethral suspension, if performed). The variations in task performed during each step of the surgery were analyzed. To minimize video review burden, only console time to perform the surgery was analyzed.
We also collected the notable outcomes and trackable events after surgery (NOTES) of these surgeons in the MUSIC registry. NOTES is a recorded peri-operative assessment for actionable data points that collectively reflect practice patterns and resource utilization, technical complications, and coordination of care [7]. We focused on the peri-operative outcomes of estimated blood loss (EBL) during surgery (recorded as above 400 ml or not), readmission rate within the first 30 days after surgery, and mortality. It is an accumulated surgeon level outcome rather than an outcome from a single patient, such as that indicated by the specific video recorded.
Analysis
The variation in time to complete each step was evaluated and calculated for mean time and ranges (minimum and maximum times) of each step. Descriptive statistics of variations are provided for each step and utilize Wilcoxon rank-sum test to calculate statistical significance for those steps with a wide range. The correlations between surgical outcomes and procedural time were evaluated and calculated by Pearson correlation coefficient. We also used Chi-squared test to analyze the EBL in different DVC controlling categories (SAS version 9.4).
Results
A total of 20 videos by unique surgeons were reviewed and analyzed. All cases were performed using the da Vinci surgical system through a transperitoneal approach. While posterior and anterior approaches were observed, in all cases, the dissection of the prostate progressed in an antegrade fashion.
Time analysis
The mean robotic operative time was 100 min (range 72–157 min). The mean time (range) to complete the major steps of surgery was: (1) bladder takedown: 9.4 min (2–24); (2) endopelvic fascia dissection: 6.9 min (3.5–11); (3) dorsal venous complex (DVC) control: 5.3 min (2.3–10.5); (4) bladder neck dissection: 13 min (6.7–30); (5) seminal vesicle dissection: 16.3 min (9–32); (6) nerve sparing and pedicle control: 17.4 min (8.3–33.3); (7) apical dissection: 7.7 min (3.9–17); and (8) urethrovesical anastomosis: 24.1 min (16.7–43.5). The operative time with the key steps for each unique surgeon is displayed in Fig. 1.
Variations in task performed
For seminal vesicle dissection, 13 surgeons (65%) performed this via an anterior approach vs. 7 surgeons (35%) who performed a posterior approach. Mean time for surgeons performing anterior approach was 15.3 min (range 9–28.6), while mean time for surgeons performing posterior approach was 18.3 min (range 10.3–32). The difference between anterior and posterior approaches was insignificant (p = 0.579) and great variance among surgeons of up to 20 min for both methods observed (Fig. 2). There is a wide variation in time (more than 20 min from min to max) to complete the steps, including bladder takedown, SV dissection, bladder neck dissection, managing pedicle/nerve-sparing, and urethrovesical anastomosis, while the others had similar times with narrow variations.
For nerve-sparing and pedicle control, the majority of surgeons (n = 15; 75%) utilized Weck Hem-o-lok clips (Teleflex, Morrisville, NC, USA). Mean time to perform the task for surgeons using Weck clips was 17.6 min (range 10–33.3). Enseal Bipolar (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, USA) was used by four surgeons, and mean time was 14.6 min (range 8.33–28.4). One surgeon employed titanium clips for pedicle control and time to perform the task was 25 min.
For the management of the DVC, the majority of surgeons (n = 12; 60%) utilized a suture ligation method. Mean time to perform the task was 5.6 min (range 3.25–10.5). Ten surgeons used non-barbed suture to perform suture ligation, while two surgeons chose barbed suture. Three surgeons employed a vascular stapler to control and divide the DVC; mean time was 3.4 min (range 2.33–4.5). Two surgeons utilized both suture ligation and then vascular stapler to control the DVC with a mean time to perform the task was 5.8 min (range 4.3–7.25). Two surgeons elected to cut and over sew the DVC with a mean time to perform the task of 6.7 min (range 2.9–10.5). One surgeon entrusted electrocautery alone to control the DVC over an elapsed time of 4 min.
For urethrovesical anastomosis, all surgeons displayed a running suture technique. Twelve surgeons chose a non-barbed suture with mean time to perform this task of 24 min (range 17–43.5) compared to eight surgeons electing a barbed suture with mean time to perform task of 24 min (range 16.67–35). Prior to performing the anastomosis, additional steps were undertaken including: three surgeons performing posterior musculofascial plate reconstruction, four surgeons adding a urethral suspension, and two surgeons including a musculofascial plate reconstruction and urethral suspension. The surgeons (n = 2) who performed both posterior musculofascial reconstruction and urethral suspension had longer times for the urethrovesical anastomosis of 39.25 min compared to mean time for surgeons (n = 11) who did not perform either was 21.6 min (range 16.67–34.5). After finishing the anastomosis, 10 surgeons performed bladder leak test, and 11 surgeon performed surgical drain placement, regardless of the leak test. Of note, two surgeons utilized suprapubic tubes instead of Foley urethral catheter for bladder drainage.
There were no mortalities recorded in these 20 cases. An EBL of > 400 ml among surgeons performing RARP ranged from 0.0 to 10.0% (median rate 1.4%). The 30-day readmission rates ranged from 1.7 to 12.7% (median rate 5.0%). Both outcomes showed no significant statistical relationship with total surgical time. In subset analysis of the time to complete bladder neck dissection, which incidently had the widest range in surgical procedural times, demonstrated no statistical significance with blood loss or readmission rates (Fig. 3). Surgeons with an EBL > 400 ml had significant difference among five different techniques employed, as shown in Fig. 4 (p < 0.01).
Discussion
We reviewed unedited surgical videos for the analysis of the key steps in RARP from 20 unique surgeons in a statewide collaborative. Considerable variation was found in most steps of the procedure. Eight procedural steps were identified. Variation was seen for (1) time to complete each step of RARP, (2) methods for DVC control, (3) nerve-sparing technique and pedicle control, and (4) performance of the urethrovesical anastomosis. To our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing RARP technique from surgeons across practices, and may represent pragmatic real-life practice patterns vs. a single-institution or single-surgeon review.
Eight key, procedural steps were identified, which matched closely with the seven steps previously published by Huynh et al. [8], although they combined DVC control and apical dissection in one step. Intuitively and historically, surgeons often equate operative time as a key measure of skillful operation. Daley et al. reported that an increase in operative time correlated with increased peri-operative morbidity [9] and Birkmeyer et al. showed a correlation with longer operative time and lowest quartile of technical skill, as judged by expert peer surgeons on video review [3]. These studies, however, do not account for variations in technical aspects of the surgeries. In our limited study, surgical time did not correlate with surgical outcomes, although with a greater understanding of various techniques, further study with greater surgeon videos may provide greater insight. Optimally, if one could correlate time to complete specific step (like urethrovesical anastomosis) to patient outcomes, then minimal standards could be established. However, considerable technical variations and patient anatomical variations may influence time, beyond the surgeon skill and experience. Prior art has provided some basis for time and outcomes. In one study, the expert with more than 100 RARP cases had more efficient movement and less tissue trauma, which may lead to better outcomes and less surgical time [10]. Furthermore, prior studies support that surgeons dedicated to continuous improvement in performance, even after becoming an expert, resulted in further improvement in several aspects including operative time and peri-operative outcomes [11].
Performing or omitting certain tasks will also affect the overall operative time and hence, may not fully correlate with surgical skill. For example, the mean time to complete urethrovesical anastomosis with both posterior reconstruction and urethral suspension was observed to be longer than doing without reconstruction in the present study. Furthermore, a surgeon’s delicacy of dissection may result in time differences. For example, some surgeons added additional time to complete a bladder neck preservation during bladder neck dissection, while other surgeons opened the bladder neck widely and reconstructed later during the case. A time difference was also observed in seminal vesicle dissection, a variance that may be accountable to surgeon skill or variable anatomy or patient conditions (such as difficulty in identifying seminal vesicles with a high median lobe, enlarged prostate in the anterior approach, or difficulty in identifying the seminal vesicle from the posterior aspect) [12]. The wide variation in surgical time during SV dissection, as well as the anastomosis, highlights these steps as one of the key parts of RARP that make operative time longer among surgeons and lends itself to further study on more efficient dissection or the need for technical refinement.
One of the major concerns in RARP is the recovery of erectile function. Although the majority of surgeons in this study (80%) employed non-thermal fashion to preserve the neurovascular bundle with cold scissors and clips to control the pedicles, some surgeons used energy sealants. The use of energy sealants during nerve-sparing is one area of frequent debate, with some advocating no, minimum, or pinpoint cautery on low-energy settings [2]. Furthermore, the method of nerve-sparing has wide variation such as inter-facial, intra-facial, extra-fascial, or high-release—which we did not catalog in our study [13]. Even with detailed reviewed of a statewide cohort of surgeons, there are still some techniques previously described or unrecognized yet among the RARP community, which may enhance a patient’s continence and potency. For example, de Carvalho et al. described a retrograde release of the neurovascular bundle with preservation of DVC to enhance both continence and potency in a single-surgeon’s experience [14]. By identifying techniques, future study of patient continence and erectile function outcomes correlated with the use of different methods of pedicle control and nerve sparing will help provide evidence-based recommendations for best practices.
For continence consideration, many surgeons believe that the urethrovesical anastomosis plays an important role; however, other technical aspects may influence outcomes, such as adjacent structure reconstruction and nerve preservation [15]. Reconstruction techniques include musculofascial plate reconstruction, which was first reported by Rocco et al. in 2011 [16] and then modified for laparoscopic surgery [17, 18]. Urethral suspension technique was described by Walsh [19] for open radical prostatectomy and Patel and co-workers [20] for RARP. Hurtes et al. [21] reported the first series combining these two reconstructive steps [22]. While some may feel that these reconstructive procedures are time consuming without evidence-based data, others believe and employ these in an attempt to improve urinary continence based on personal experience or small series [23].
Despite multiple reconstructive tasks for urethrovesical anastomosis observed in our cohort, all surgeons employed a continuous stitch, although some used a barbed suture. Early experience in laparoscopic and robotic surgery mimicked open techniques, using an interrupted anastomosis technique [24]. Over time, however, growing experience and reported outcomes were superior with continuous (vs. interrupted) [25, 26]. Subsequently, a running anastomosis became the standard technique for RARP. While the running anastomosis has been widely employed, there are still new techniques that make the anastomosis more efficient like the barbed suture method [27, 28].
The control of the DVC was another surgical step with multiple (5) techniques observed. There were many issues discussed regarding DVC control techniques including the most focus on surgical positive margin and EBL. EBL showed static difference among different techniques was consistent with prior study which suture and stapler were performed by a single surgeon [29].
Video review and assessment is a great tool to learn variation in surgical technique; however, robotic surgery videos do not capture all aspects of the surgical team’s assistance such as communication and non-verbal cues that can lead to outcome differences [30]. In addition, while all our videos were for nerve-sparing cases, we did not include pathology/staging data, which is an important factor for technique during RARP [31]. Other factors may play a role in the time that it takes to complete a step, variance of techniques, and patient outcomes. One of the limitations of this study is the lack of the patient’s characteristics, and long-term functional and oncological outcomes. However, the aim of this paper, which claimed no comparison among different techniques, was to examine the variation in the techniques among a focused group of surgeons within a statewide collaborative team. The video was selected as a representative case of low-to-intermediate risk disease, what would be considered a typical case without difficult anatomy and morbid obesity. As residents and fellows enter their own clinical practices, they start introducing their own variation to the surgery and this may have accounted for some of the differences observed in the many steps. Although the surgeon number is relatively small, it was the first statewide surgeon from both private and academic institution performing RARP, which could be closer to the basis in the real world, for our best knowledge. For example, the video review work from the bariatric surgeons [4] also featured data from 20 surgical videos, and our work is similar in that respect. Future efforts from our group will acquire larger samples and make more comparisons to give more reinforce in identifying if a task is necessary or not.
Despite the worldwide popularity of RARP, the operation is still far from “standardized”. Varied techniques were utilized for different key steps that may lead to different outcomes. In the preset cohort, we observed steps with a wide range of variation, while some only differed in the suture selection; less variance may suggest more standard and well-recognized techniques. Alternatively, further studies may focus on steps with the most variability and correlate with outcome data. The goal is to expand our knowledge and reach a consensus for the steps and techniques of RARP with the aim to improve patient outcomes.
Conclusion
In this study, surgical video review demonstrated variation in the major steps of RARP for surgeons participating in a statewide surgical collaborative. Different techniques are employed and there is also a wide range in the time to complete each task for several key steps. Correlating variations in technique with clinical outcomes may help provide objective data to support best practices with the goal to improve peri-operative and functional patient outcomes.
References
Gray PJ, Lin CC, Cooperberg MR, Jemal A, Efstathiou JA (2017) Temporal trends and the impact of race, insurance, and socioeconomic status in the management of localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:729–737
Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK et al (2018) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy verses open radical retropublic prostatectomy: 24 month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 19:1051–1060
Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A et al (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369:1434–1442
Varban OA, Niemann A, Stricklen A, Ross R, Ghaferi AA, Finks JF, Dimick JB (2017) Far from standardized: using surgical videos to identify variation in technique for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27:768–769
Prebay ZJ, Peabody JO, Miller DC, Ghani KR (2019) Video review for measuring and improving skill in urological surgery. Nat Rev Urol 16:261–267
Ghani KR, Miller DC, Linsell S et al (2016) Measuring to improve: peer and crowd-sourced assessments of technical skill with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 69:547–550
Myers SN, Ghani KR, Dunn RL et al (2016) Notable outcomes and trackable events after surgery: evaluating an uncomplicated recovery after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 196:399–404
Huynh LM, Ahlering TE (2018) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a step-by-step guide. J Endourol 32:S28–S32
Daley BJ, Cecil W, Clarke PC, Cofer JB, Guillamondegui OD (2015) How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee Surgical Quality Collaborative. J Am Coll Surg 220:550–558
Chen J, Oh PJ, Cheng N et al (2018) Use of automated performance metrics to measure surgeon performance during robotic vesicourethral anastomosis and methodical development of a training tutorial. J Urol 200:895–902
Hung AJ, Oh PJ, Chen J, Ghodoussipour S, Lane C, Jarc A, Gill IS (2018) Experts vs super-experts: differences in automated performance metrics and clinical outcomes for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 123:861–868
Fagin R, Lee D (2008) The timing and route of seminal vesicle dissection during robotic prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 1:23–25
Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R et al (2016) A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy of the prostate related to optimisation of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy: an update. Eur Urol 70:301–311
de Carvalho PA, Barbosa JABA, Guglielmetti GB, Cordeiro MD, Rocco B, Nahas WC, Patel V, Coelho RF (2018) Retrograde release of the neurovascular bundle with preservation of dorsal venous complex during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: optimizing functional outcomes. Eur Urol S0302–2838:30481–30490
Pavlovich CP, Rocco B, Druskin SC, Davis JW (2017) Urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy—anatomical/reconstructive and nerve-sparing techniques to improve outcomes. BJU Int 120:185–196
Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P et al (2006) Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 175:2201–2206
Gautam G, Rocco B, Patel VR, Zorn KC (2010) Posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: critical analysis of techniques and outcomes. Urology 3:734–741
Joshi N, de Blok W, van Muilekom E, van der Poel H (2010) Impact of posterior musculofascial reconstruction on early continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective parallel group trial. Eur Urol 58:84–89
Walsh PC (1998) Anatomical radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 160:2418–2424
Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B (2009) Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 56:472–478
Hurtes X, Roupret M, Vaessen C et al (2012) Anterior suspension combined with posterior reconstruction during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy improves early return of continence: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. BJU Int 110:875–883
Tan G, Srivastava A, Grover S et al (2010) Optimizing vesicourethral anastomosis healing after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: lessons learned from three techniques in 1900 patients. J Endourol 24:1975–1983
Vis AN, van der Poel HG, Ruiter AEC et al (2018) Posterior, anterior, and periurethral surgical reconstruction of urinary continence mechanisms in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a description and video compilation of commonly performed surgical techniques. Eur Urol S0302–2838:30934–30935
Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Hatzinger M, Schulze M, Frede T (2003) Technical evolution of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after 450 cases. J Endourol 17:143–154
Matsuyama H, Matsumoto H, Nagao K, Harada N, Hara T, Sakano S (2015) Running suture versus interrupted suture for vesicourethral anastomosis in retropubic radical prostatectomy: a randomized study. Int J Urol 22:271–277
Lee SW, Han DH, Lee KS, Jeon SS (2015) Effect of continuous urethro-vesical anastomosis technique in incontinence after radical retropubic prostatectomy, 1:1 matching study. Int Neurourol J 19:113–119
Sammon J, Kim TK, Trinh QD, Bhandari A, Kaul S, Sukumar S, Rogers CG, Peabody JO (2011) Anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: randomized controlled trial comparing barbed and standard monofilament suture. Urology 78:572–579
Zorn KC, Trinh QD, Jeldres C (2012) Prospective randomized trial of barbed polyglyconate suture to facilitate vesico-urethral anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: time reduction and cost benefit. BJU Int 109:1526–1532
Wu SD, Meeks JJ, Cashy J, Perry KT, Nadler RB (2010) Suture versus staple ligation of the dorsal venous complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 106:385–390
Raheem S, Ahmed YE, Hussein AA et al (2018) Variability and interpretation of communication taxonomy during robot-assisted surgery: do we all speak the same language? BJU Int 122:99–105
Simon RM, Howard LE, Moreira DM et al (2017) Predictors of operative time during radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Int J Urol 24:618–623
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the surgeons providing and reviewing the surgical videos and clinical champions and urologists in each participating MUSIC practice (details around specific participating urologists and practices can be found at http://www.musicurology.com), as well as members of the MUSIC Coordinating Center. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support provided by Amy McKenzie, Faris Ahmad, Tom Leyden, Roz Darland, and the Value Partnerships program at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
Funding
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is the sponsor for the MUSIC. The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
KRG: manuscript editing and project development. WKJ: manuscript editing and project development. ZJP: data collection or management and analysis. PP: manuscript writing and analysis. TK and other: project management. EK: manuscript editing and other: project oversight. SL and other: obtaining funding. DCM: manuscript editing. JOP: manuscript editing and other: project oversight. JT: data collection or management. JQ: data collection or management and analysis. RCW: manuscript writing and data analysis.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Both Dr. Miller and Dr. Ghani receive support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for serving the MUSIC as program directors. Dr. Miller receives grant support from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. William Johnston III is a speaker for Janssen and Pfizer and on the advisory board for Ethicon/Verb Surgical.
Research involving human participants
This study was a retrospective review de-identified video. We did not obtain patient’s characteristics and there is no issue involving human participants.
Informed consent
This study is aim to classify the key steps of the surgery and understand technical aspect. There is no issue on patient’s identifiable dates.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, R.C., Prebay, Z.J., Patel, P. et al. Using video review to understand the technical variation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a statewide surgical collaborative. World J Urol 38, 1607–1613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02906-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02906-4