The second “time-out”: A surgical safety checklist for lengthy robotic surgeries

Robotic surgeries of long duration are associated with both increased risks to patients as well as distinct challenges for care providers. We propose a surgical checklist, to be completed during a second “time-out”, aimed at reducing peri-operative complications and addressing obstacles presented by lengthy robotic surgeries. A review of the literature was performed to identify the most common complications of robotic surgeries with extended operative times. A surgical checklist was developed with the goal of addressing these issues and maximizing patient safety. Extended operative times during robotic surgery increase patient risk for position-related complications and other adverse events. These cases also raise concerns for surgical, anesthesia, and nursing staff which are less common in shorter, non-robotic operations. Key elements of the checklist were designed to coordinate operative staff in verifying patient safety while addressing the unique concerns within each specialty. As robotic surgery is increasingly utilized, operations with long surgical times may become more common due to increased case complexity and surgeons overcoming the learning curve. A standardized surgical checklist, conducted three to four hours after the start of surgery, may enhance perioperative patient safety and quality of care

Robotic partial nephrectomy for posterior tumors through a retroperitoneal approach offers decreased length of stay compared with the transperitoneal approach: A propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare surgical outcomes between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for posterior tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using our multi-institutional RPN database, we reviewed 610 consecutive cases for posterior renal masses treated between 2007 and 2015. Primary outcomes were complications, operative time, length of stay (LOS), surgical margin status, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) preservation. Secondary outcomes were estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time (WIT), disease recurrence, and disease-specific mortality. Due to significant differences in treatment year and tumor size between approaches, retroperitoneal cases were matched 1:4 to transperitoneal cases based on propensity scores using the greedy algorithm. Outcomes were compared between approaches using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: After matching, 296 transperitoneal and 74 retroperitoneal cases were available for analysis, and matched groups were well balanced in terms of treatment year, age, gender, race, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA) score, body mass index, tumor laterality, tumor size, R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus, anterior/posterior, location relative to polar lines) score, and hilar location. Compared with transperitoneal, the retroperitoneal approach was associated with significantly shorter mean LOS (2.2 vs 2.6 days, p = 0.01), but longer mean WIT (21 vs 19 minutes, p = 0.01). Intraoperative (p = 0.35) and postoperative complications (p = 0.65), operative time (p = 0.93), positive margins (p = 1.0), and latest eGFR preservation (p = 0.25) were not significantly different between approaches. No differences were detected in the other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-volume surgeons, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal RPN achieved similar outcomes for posterior renal masses, although with slight differences in LOS and WIT. Retroperitoneal RPN may be an effective option for the treatment of certain small posterior renal masses