Examines outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy skills in clinical fellows, indicating effective training and improved proficiency.
Objective (1) To examine 10-yr outcomes of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy (RARC) with Intracorporeal Ileal Conduit (ICIC) performed by international clinical fellows within a 1-yr RCS-Eng Urothelial Senior Fellowship Programme. (2) To explore fellows’ learning curve (LC) trajectories and perceived European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) RARC/ICIC curriculum competency achievement. Methods RARC/ICIC with curative intent for bladder cancer performed by supervised fellows (2015–2025) were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes and Kaplan-Meier survival trajectories served as surrogates of training competency and safety. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) model by operative time (OT) was applied for RARC/ICIC LC. Time to perceived proficiency across the 12 ERUS RARC/ICIC clinical modules was explored. Results A total of 423 procedures (median follow-up 39 mo, interquartile range 16–70) were included. Proficiency by CUSUM was identified at 30 th case, with significant reduction in total OT thereafter (350 vs 300 min, p = 0.017). Outcomes within learning and proficiency phases were comparable, including postoperative complications (36.6% vs 46.0%, p = 0.07), readmissions (16.9% vs 18.7%, p = 0.68), and cancer-specific survival ( p = 0.97). ERUS curriculum acquisition was progressive: early modules in 0–1 mo by 88.9% of fellows and advanced modules in 4–6 mo by 100%. Skin-to-skin RARC/ICIC was achieved within ≤3, 4–6, and >6 mo in 11.1%, 33.3% and 55.6% of fellows, respectively. Previous robotic exposure was the only predictor for shorter time to independence (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval 1.17–13.29). Post-fellowship, 88.9% of fellows continued independent RARC/ICIC practice. Conclusions Structured Senior Robotic Fellowship training achieves safe and efficient acquisition of RARC/ICIC skills. The observed LC corroborates the educational value of the ERUS modular curriculum in the setting of a tertiary referral center.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giudice et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: