Female Urology and Urogynecology: The Outcome of Patients Participating in Live Surgical Broadcasts.
Journal
Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2154-4212
Titre abrégé: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
8
9
2018
medline:
2
10
2021
entrez:
8
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of this study were to assess the complications and short- and long-term outcomes of patients involved in live surgical broadcasts (LSBs) of female urology and urogynecological surgery and compare the surgical success with operations performed outside this setting by the same surgeons. We reviewed our prospectively collected database of all patients who had taken part in LSBs between 2008 and 2015 for the annual female urology and urogynecology course. Data on intraoperative and 30- and 90-day complications and primary outcomes from surgery were collected. Procedure-specific success rates were determined and compared with the center's previously published success rate for these procedures. Overall, 53 females with a median age of 50 years (range, 23-77 years) underwent 62 procedures during these LSBs. There were no intraoperative complications. There was 1 Clavien-Dindo grade II complication within 30 days of surgery. Within 90 days of surgery, there was 1 Clavien-Dindo grade III complication, which occurred in a patient having removal of anterior pelvic organ prolapse mesh for urethral erosion and simultaneous colposuspension. The majority of operations, 57 (92%) of 62, achieved their intended primary outcome. With careful planning, LSB can offer a safe way of sharing current operative techniques and decision making with similar 30- and 90-day complication rates to standard practices and comparable functional outcomes to standard practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30192256
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000634
pii: 01436319-202009000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
554-557Références
Mullins JK, Borofsky MS, Allaf ME, et al. Live robotic surgery: are outcomes compromised?. Urology 2012;80(3):602–607.
Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ, Molyneux A, et al. Live case demonstrations: patient safety, ethics, consent, and conflicts. Lancet 2011;377(9776):1539–1541.
Leavitt DA, Kavoussi LR. Live surgical demonstrations: an endangered species. Urol Oncol 2015;33(4):159–162.
Artibani W, Ficarra V, Challacombe BJ, et al. EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur Urol 2014;66(1):87–97.
Phan YC, Segaran S, Wiseman O, et al. Which is better? “Live” surgical broadcasts vs “as-live” surgical broadcasts. J Endourol 2016;30(9):1022–1028.
Vanermen HK. Live surgery should not be outlawed at national and regional cardiothoracic meetings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139(4):822–825.
Times J. Patient in ‘live’ surgery showing died soon after 2007. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/06/07/national/patient-in-live-surgery-showing-died-soon-after/#.W4xAW62ZOuU. Accessed January 9, 2018.
Hindu T. Patient dies during live surgery at AIIMS 2015. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/patient-dies-during-live-surgery-at-aiims/article7517421.ece. Accessed January 9, 2018.
Williams JB, Mathews R, D'Amico TA. “Reality surgery”—a research ethics perspective on the live broadcast of surgical procedures. J Surg Educ 2011;68(1):58–61.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240(2):205–213.
Khan SA, Chang RT, Ahmed K, et al. Live surgical education: a perspective from the surgeons who perform it. BJU Int 2014;114(1):151–158.
Philip-Watson J, Khan SA, Hadjipavlou M, et al. Live surgery at conferences—clinical benefits and ethical dilemmas. Arab J Urol 2014;12(3):183–186.
Rocco B, Grasso AAC, De Lorenzis E, et al. Live surgery: highly educational or harmful?. World J Urol 2018;36(2):171–175.
Ogaya-Pinies G, Abdul-Muhsin H, Palayapalayam-Ganapathi H, Bonet X, Rogers T, Rocco B, et al. Safety of live robotic surgery: results from a single institution. [published online ahead of print August 28, 2017]. Eur Urol Focus 2017.
Eliyahu S, Roguin A, Kerner A, et al. Patient safety and outcomes from live case demonstrations of interventional cardiology procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012;5(2):215–224.
Liao Z, Li ZS, Leung JW, et al. How safe and successful are live demonstrations of therapeutic ERCP? A large multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104(1):47–52.
Schmit A, Lazaraki G, Hittelet A, et al. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during live endoscopy workshop demonstrations. Endoscopy 2005;37(8):695–699.
Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:Cd006375.
Karmakar D, Mostafa A, Abdel-Fattah M. Long-term outcomes of transobturator tapes in women with stress urinary incontinence: E-TOT randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2017;124(6):973–981.
van Voskuilen AC, Oerlemans DJ, Weil EH, et al. Long term results of neuromodulation by sacral nerve stimulation for lower urinary tract symptoms: a retrospective single center study. Eur Urol 2006;49(2):366–372.
Serati M, Braga A, Athanasiou S, et al. Tension-free vaginal tape-obturator for treatment of pure urodynamic stress urinary incontinence: efficacy and adverse effects at 10-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2017;71(4):674–679.
Athanasopoulos A, Gyftopoulos K, McGuire EJ. Efficacy and preoperative prognostic factors of autologous fascia rectus sling for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2011;78(5):1034–1038.
Lee U, Wolff EM, Kobashi KC. Native tissue repairs in anterior vaginal prolapse surgery: examining definitions of surgical success in the mesh era. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22(4):265–270.
Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, et al. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190(1):20–26.
Culligan PJ, Blackwell L, Goldsmith LJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing fascia lata and synthetic mesh for sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106(1):29–37.
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Mehrotra S, et al. Repair of vesicovaginal fistula by the transabdominal route: outcome at a north Indian tertiary hospital. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23(4):411–416.
Hillary CJ, Osman NI, Hilton P, et al. The aetiology, treatment, and outcome of urogenital fistulae managed in well- and low-resourced countries: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2016;70(3):478–492.
Kapoor R, Ansari MS, Singh P, et al. Management of vesicovaginal fistula: an experience of 52 cases with a rationalized algorithm for choosing the transvaginal or transabdominal approach. Indian J Urol 2007;23(4):372–376.
Ko KJ, Suh YS, Kim TH, et al. Surgical outcomes of primary and recurrent female urethral diverticula. Urology 2017;105:181–185.
Popat S, Zimmern PE. Long-term outcomes after the excision of horseshoe urethral diverticulum. Int Urogynecol J 2016;27(3):439–444.
Petrou SP, Rogers AE, Parker AS, et al. Dorsal vaginal graft urethroplasty for female urethral stricture disease. BJU Int 2012;110(11 pt C):E1090–E1095.
Kowalik C, Stoffel JT, Zinman L, et al. Intermediate outcomes after female urethral reconstruction: graft vs flap. Urology 2014;83(5):1181–1185.
Ismail S, Chartier-Kastler E, Perrouin-Verbe MA, et al. Long-term functional outcomes of S3 sacral “”neuromodulation for the treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. Neuromodulation 2017;20(8):825–829.