Safety of Live Robotic Surgery: Results from a Single Institution

Safety and effectiveness of live broadcast of surgical procedures: systematic review

Introduction

Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures (LBSP) has gained popularity in conferences and educational meetings in the past few decades. This is due to rapid advancement in both Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) that enable transmission of the entire operative field and transmission ease and technology to help broadcast the operation to a live audience. The aim of this study was to update the evidence with specific emphasis on the patient safety issues related to LBSP in MIS.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline, Embase and Pubmed using defined search terms related to LBSP in educational events across all surgical specialities, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We also consolidated the prior guidelines and position statements on this topic. Outcomes included reports on the educational value of LBSP as well as patient safety outcomes and ethical issues that were captured by clinical outcomes.

Results

A total 1230 abstracts were identified with 27 papers meeting the inclusion criteria (13 original articles and 14 position statements/guidelines). All studies highlighted the educational benefits of LBSP but without clear measure of these benefits. Clinical outcomes were not compromised in 9 studies but were inferior in the remaining 4, including lower completion rate of endoscopic surgery and higher rate of re-operation. Only nine studies complied with dedicated consent forms for LBSP with no consistent approach of reporting on maintaining patient confidentiality during LBSP.

There was a lack of recommendation on standardised approach of reporting on LBSP including the outcomes across the 14 published guidelines and positions statements.

Conclusions

Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures can be of educational value but patient safety may be compromised. A standardised framework of reporting on LBSP and its outcomes is required from an ethical and patient safety perspective.

PROSPERO registration

CRD42021256901.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09072-6.

Live surgery outcomes in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the outcomes of live surgery (LS) and no-live surgery (NLS) on cataract surgery with implantation of different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

Retrospective, contralateral eye, case series of patients that underwent cataract surgery in live or non-live view during two consecutive editions of national meetings. Both eyes of the same patients were implanted with the same IOL, one in LS and the other in NLS.

RESULTS

108 eyes of 54 patients, aged between 50 and 82 (72 ± 8.2) and implanted with different types of IOLs, were reviewed. Both eyes in each patient were well matched at baseline in terms of intraocular biometric characteristics, corneal curvature and endothelial cell density (ECD) (p > 0.05). There are no statistically significant differences between the biometric and topographic parameters, aberrometric data and the loss of ECD in the post-operative outcomes (p > 0.05). However, comparing the different types of IOLs, there is a significant loss of ECD in eyes implanted with a toric IOL during LS (p = 0.0014 and p = 0.04, in 2017 and 2018 edition respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this series of live cataract surgery, eyes operated in LS or NLS have comparable outcomes, underlying the importance and the benefits of live view in terms of medical education and the low-risk of complications. Nevertheless, we have found a significant increase in ECD loss in patients implanted with toric IOLs during LS.

Live surgery of colorectal endometriosis broadcasted from a surgeon's routine operating theater is not associated with higher complications rate

INTRODUCTION

Although live surgeries are routinely included in surgical congress programs, they are the subject of an ongoing debate in terms of patient safety and teaching value. The goal of our study was to assess the risk of postoperative complications related to live surgery broadcast from the surgeon's routine theater, in patients managed for deep endometriosis infiltrating the digestive tract.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We report a retrospective comparative study, enrolling women managed for colorectal endometriosis by a gynecologic surgeon, from September 2013 to March 2020 in two referral centers. We compared the rate of postoperative bowel fistula in women managed during live surgery in the routine operating theater, with that observed in women for whom surgery was not broadcast.

RESULTS

Among 813 women, 33 (4.1% of cases) underwent surgical procedures transmitted live to various conference rooms located outside the hospital and were compared with 780 patients who underwent non-broadcast surgery. Women's age, body mass index, past surgical and obstetrical history, and major preoperative complaints were comparable. Cases presented with impaired constipation score, more frequent sciatic pain, and infiltration of the vagina, whereas overall revised American Fertility Society classification scores were more severe in controls. The rate of rectal nodules over 3 cm in size was comparable between the two groups (72.7% in cases vs. 72.1% in controls). Operative time was also comparable (153 ± 52 minutes vs. 148 ± 79 minutes). Cases were more frequently managed by disk excision of rectal nodules (63.7% vs. 30.3%), and more frequently involved the sacral plexus (18.2% vs. 7.3%). Postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups, in terms of bowel fistula (3% in the live surgery group vs. 4.1% in controls), pelvic abscess requiring secondary laparoscopy (3% vs. 4.9%), or bladder dysfunction requiring self-catheterization after discharge (6.1% vs. 5.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Performing laparoscopic management of colorectal endometriosis with live transmission of surgery from a surgeon's routine operating theater, is not related to a higher risk of major postoperative complications.

Risks and Benefits of Live Surgical Broadcast: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Live surgical broadcast (LSB), also known as live surgery, has become a popular format for many types of surgical education meetings. However, concerns have been raised in relation to patient safety, ethical issues, and the actual educational value of LSB.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on LSB with a focus on the risks of complications and the educational impact.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of the literature according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies up to December 2020. We identified original articles reporting on patient outcomes, educational value, current use, and development of LSB. We also interrogated surgical society guidelines for position statements on LSB.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Our literature search identified 46 studies spanning six surgical specialties, with urology being the most frequent. Approximately half of the studies reported on outcomes of surgical procedures during LSB. In urology, the few comparative studies available did not suggest higher complication rates in LSB, whereas data for other surgical fields highlighted evidence of worse outcomes. Four studies assessed the educational value of LSB via survey administration, for which the evidence is limited and of low quality. Thirteen guidelines and position statements on live surgery were identified among major surgical societies, including the European Association of Urology (EAU). Some surgical societies have expressly prohibited the use of LSB at their major meetings. The perspective of surgeons performing and/or attending live surgical sessions was evaluated in six studies, and four studies looked at urologists' perception of LSB compared to semi-LSB. Limitations of this systematic review include the limited number of studies available, the low quality of the evidence, and data heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding outcomes of LSB is limited. Almost all the studies do not show a higher risk of complications or worse outcomes for patients undergoing a procedure during LSB. Only one study on gastrointestinal surgery reported that LSB outcomes were worse. Ongoing concerns have led to specific guidelines by several scientific societies, including the EAU, with the ultimate aim of minimizing surgical risks and maximizing patient safety.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Live surgery events are often part of surgical conferences. Data in the literature show mixed outcomes for operations performed during live surgery events, but with no increase in complication rates. Safety and ethical concerns remain. Other educational tools, such as prerecorded videos and live surgery transmission from the home institution of the operating surgeon might become preferred options in the future. This review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO website (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, registration number CRD42020194023).

Live surgery: Safety study after 17 editions of retroperitoneoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Live surgery has become an excellent tool for medical training. Despite this, there is controversy about the safety of the patients involved.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of live surgeries performed in 17 consecutive retroperitoneoscopy courses organized in our center. Procedures performed were partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy (RN) and nephroureterectomy (NU).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review from January 2010 to October 2017 of all live surgeries carried out by an expert surgical team in the retroperitoneoscopy courses, compared with a control group of surgeries performed in standard conditions. A matching (1:1 for each RN and 1:2 for each PN and NU) according to age, body mass index and comorbidities was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one live surgeries were analyzed (eight PN, seven RN and six NU) with a global median follow-up of 38 months. No significant differences were observed between both groups in terms of perioperative variables (operative time, operative bleeding and intraoperative complications) or of postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Likewise, there were no differences between recurrence rates (PN: 0% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.47, NU: 33.3% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.180, RN: 0% vs. 28.6%, p = 0,127).

CONCLUSIONS

Live surgery in the hands of expert surgeons in a suitable environment and with well-selected patients does not increase the risk of complications and allows maintaining the same oncological outcomes.

Evaluation of Live Surgery Meetings: Our Experience with the "Live Makeover Aesthetic Surgery Symposium"

Live Surgery Meetings have been established as a vey effective means to demonstrate certain surgical techniques and intraoperative decision-making. However, many authors still question the ethics of this approach. We present our experience as organizers of the Live Makeover Aesthetic Surgery Symposium, an annual international live surgery meeting taking place in Athens, Greece.

Learning benefits of live surgery and semi-live surgery in urology-informing the debate with results from the International Meeting of Reconstructive Urology (IMORU) VIII

Purpose

To analyze the perceived learning opportunities of participants of the International Meeting on Reconstructive Urology (IMORU) VIII for both live surgery demonstrations (LSD) and semi-live surgery demonstrations (SLSD). Safety and educational efficacy of LSD and SLSD at live surgery events (LSE) have been debated extensively, however, objective data comparing learning benefits are missing.

Methods

We conducted a detailed survey, which employed the Kirkpatrick model, a well-established assessment method of training models, to investigate participants preferences as well as the learning benefit of LSE. Furthermore, we employed an audience response system and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), a well-established assessment method of surgery skills, to let our participants rate the perceived learning opportunity of LSD and SLSD.

Results

Of 229 participants at the IMORU VIII, 39.7% returned our questionnaires. 90% stated that they prefer LSD. On all levels of Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model, the IMORU received high ratings, suggesting a high learning benefit. For the assessment of OSATS, a total of 23 surgical cases were evaluable. For all six utilized items, LSD scored significantly better ratings than SLSD.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that there is still a rationale for LSD, as participants attributed a statistically significant higher learning benefit to LSD over SLDS. Evaluation of the survey showed that for LSE such as the IMORU VIII, a high learning benefit can be expected. Considering that most of our participants are active surgeons with high caseloads, their opinion on the educational value of LSE is of high relevance.

Didactic Benefits of Surgery on Body Donors during Live Surgery Events in Minimally Invasive Surgery

Background: Live surgery events serve as a valuable tool for surgical education, but also raise ethical concerns about patient safety and professional performance. In the present study, we evaluate the technical feasibility and didactic benefits of live surgery on body donors compared to real patients. Methods: A live surgery session performed on a body donor’s cadaver embalmed in ethanol–glycerol–lysoformin was integrated into the live surgery program presented at a major gynecological convention of minimally invasive surgery. Surgical procedures carried out in real patients were paralleled in the body donor, including the dissection and illustration of surgically relevant anatomical landmarks. A standardized questionnaire was filled by the participants (n = 208) to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and benefits of this novel concept. Results: The live surgery event was appreciated as a useful educational tool. With regard to the use of body donors, authenticity was rated high (85.5%), and the overall value of body donors for surgical education and training was rated very high (95.0%). The didactic benefit of simultaneous operations performed on body donors and real patients was considered particularly useful (95.5%), whereas complete replacement of real patients by body donors was not favored (14.5%). Conclusions: The study demonstrated both the technical feasibility and didactic benefits of performing minimally invasive surgery in body donors as part of live surgery events. This novel concept has the potential to enhance anatomical knowledge, providing insights into complex surgical procedures, and may serve to overcome yet unresolved ethical concerns related to live surgery events.

Live-case demonstrations in pediatric urology: Ethics, patient safety, and clinical outcomes from an 8-year institutional experience

Purpose

Live case demonstrations have become a common occurrence at surgical meetings around the world. These demonstrations are meant to serve as an educational medium for teaching techniques, promote discussion, improve interventions and outcomes. Despite the valuable educational benefits, many authors still question the ethics of this approach. We present our 8-year experience in live surgery, discuss the ethical issues, and provide recommendations.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed records of patients who underwent live robotic surgery during broadcasting events. Procedures performed were robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RAL-P), ureteral reimplantation (RALUR), and hemi-nephrectomy (RAL-HN). Peri- and post-operative outcomes were compared to our previously published case series.

Results

From October 2011 to May 2019, the senior author (MSG) performed all live surgery demonstrations on 22 patients: 9 RAL-P, 9 RALUR, and 4 RAL-HN. Live RAL-Ps had a 100% success rate and lower 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade (CDG) III complications when compared to our previous case series (11.1% vs. 21.2%). RALURs performed during live demonstrations had a higher success rate than our previously published cohort (100% vs. 82%). RAL-HN operative time and length of stay were comparable to our non-live control group.

Conclusions

Live surgery is a valuable didactic tool, but even experienced surgeons may be adversely affected by inappropriate case selection, technical difficulty, and anxiety associated with particular settings, such as operating at different institutions or working with unfamiliar surgical teams. We suggest consultation of an ethics review board and formulation of standard guidelines for patient selection, surgical equipment, and operative team.

Surgical teaching in urology: patient safety and educational value of 'LIVE' and 'SEMI-LIVE' surgical demonstrations

Purpose

To evaluate the opinion of urologists and their audience regarding patient safety and educational value of live surgical demonstrations (LSD) and semi-live surgical demonstrations (semi-LSD).

Methods

Following the ‘2017 Challenges in Endourology’ meeting, a survey addressing patient safety and the educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was disseminated online to all participants. Survey outcomes of LSD and semi-LSD were compared.

Results

All 279 respondents attended both LSD and semi-LSD. Overall, 53% of said respondents stated that patient safety was always the highest priority for LSD, while 74% noted the same for semi-LSD. The complication risk in LSD was perceived equal by 57% of the respondents when compared to cases of similar difficulty in routine practice, while 38% perceived it as a greater risk. For semi-LSD, the complication risk was perceived equal by 84%, while 5% perceived it to be a greater risk in comparison to general practice. On a scale from 0 (no value) to 10 (highly valuable), the average educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was rated 8.4 and 8.3, respectively. A substantial percentage of the surgeons who perform LSD express concerns that live surgery is not the optimal setting to ensure patient safety.

Conclusions

LSD remains a popular tool for surgical education among urologists and their audience. However, patient safety remains a concern and is perceived less of a concern for semi-LSD. The educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was scored equally high. Therefore, we should consider to advocate the use of semi-LSD more often.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-018-2291-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.