Training in robotic thoracic surgery

Linsky, Paul L.; Wei, Benjamin

doi:10.21037/jovs.2017.12.12

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In group Phase 1, the absence of complication and mortality and short hospitalization time was consistent with the literature [9]. In group Phase 2, we selected 2nd level pathological conditions similar to the literature [6][7][8]. In the Phase 2 patients, the rate of air leak (n = 3) was also similar to the results in the literature [10].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…The observation of the interventions implemented by an experienced surgeon, training on animals and cadavers should be considered in the second phase and in the third phase, the candidate should perform robotic surgery starting from simple cases with a dual console if available, if not under the supervision of a proctor. Some studies had divided three phases as 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd phase operations [5][6][7]. Like the recommendations in the literature, we planned our training in three phases after a lobectomy practice period on pigs [6][7][8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies had divided three phases as 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd phase operations [5][6][7]. Like the recommendations in the literature, we planned our training in three phases after a lobectomy practice period on pigs [6][7][8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Starting experience in robotic thoracic surgery

Akkuş¹

2019

Curr Thorac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The robotic assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) spreads rapidly across the whole world. In this paper, the objective was to present the training experience on RATS in our clinic along with the literature. Materials and Methods: Sixty-three consecutive patients, who had undergone RATS between February 2014 and December 2018, were included in this retrospective non-randomized study. The training period was designed as three phases. Twelve patients with solid and cystic mass lesions in the mediastinum and chest wall were included in group Phase 1. The group Phase 2 consisted of 16 patients who had thymoma and benign pulmonary mass lesions, and 35 consecutive patients were enrolled into group Phase 3 group who had undergone lobectomy. Results: The patients in all groups were compared in respect of the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative results. The docking time was significantly shorter in Phase 3 patients compared to the groups Phase 1 and 2 (p < 0.05). In the lobectomy group (Phase 3), as the console time and operation time was significantly shorter after the 20th patient than the prior patients, first 20 patients were accepted as the learning curve (p < 0.05). In the lobectomy group, in three patients the operation was converted to open surgery during the perioperative period (4.7%). No mortality was observed during the 30-day follow-up. One patient died in the 6 th month of the long-term follow-up. The mean follow-up duration was 28.4 months. Conclusions: RATS is a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive method, which has low complication rates with a satisfying and short learning curve.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Starting experience in robotic thoracic surgery

Akkuş¹

2019

Curr Thorac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The broader implementation of ERAS ® is also an opportunity to model quality malnutrition care and impact outcomes. ERAS ® is not a single, rigid protocol but rather a comprehensive new way for multidisciplinary teamwork to make changes as knowledge evolves [ 51 ]. ERAS ® includes a significant nutrition component and ERAS ® has been shown to decrease complications, reduce LOS, and save costs for oncology patients undergoing surgery [ 52 , 53 , 54 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities for Quality Improvement Programs (QIPs) in the Nutrition Support of Patients with Cancer

Arensberg

Richards²,

Benjamin

et al. 2020

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malnutrition in patients with cancer is a ubiquitous but neglected problem that can reduce patient survival/quality of life and increase treatment interruptions, readmission rates, and healthcare costs. Malnutrition interventions, including nutrition support through dietary counseling, diet fortification, oral nutrition supplements (ONS), and enteral and parenteral nutrition can help improve health outcomes. However, nutritional care standards and interventions for cancer are ambiguous and inconsistently applied. The lack of systematic malnutrition screening and intervention in ambulatory cancer care has especially significant consequences and thus the nutrition support of patients with cancer represents an area for quality improvement. United States healthcare payment models such as the Oncology Care Model are linked to quality of care and health outcomes. Quality improvement programs (QIPs) can advance patient-centered care, perfect care processes, and help healthcare professionals meet their quality measure performance goals. Malnutrition QIPs like the Malnutrition Quality Improvement Initiative (MQii) have been shown to be effective in identifying and treating malnutrition. However, little is known about or has been reported on nutrition or malnutrition-focused QIPs in cancer care. This paper provides information to support translational research on quality improvement and outlines the gaps and potential opportunities for QIPs in the nutrition support of patients with cancer.

show abstract

“…BOX Next Steps for the Medical Education Community Be actively involved in robotic cases-even if role is at bedside8 Complete criteria recommended (as outlined by faculty/ department) prior to case involvement9,10 Track self-robotic experiences11,12 : what cases were performed, how often residents are involved, how often residents are operating on console, what key points came up, what challenges arose, what to do differently in the future…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%