Table 2.6 Standardized training courses in laparoscopy and retroperitoneoscopy in urology

2.7 The difficulty scoring system of laparoscopic procedures(15)

Scores, everywhere, have always been a subject of controversy and discussion and this one is unlikely to be

the exception to the rule. However, if it can serve as a basis for discussion, this proposal will not have been in

vain.

It is important to stress that the proposed score is only a means of classifying the learning curve. It aims to provide the beginner in laparoscopic surgery with a scale of improvement, a perspective of progression. It is not designed to 'classify' surgeons. Fortunately, surgery is not confined to a technical procedure, but the surgical procedure is nevertheless an integral part of surgery.

Criteria

Technical difficulty: The first criterion is obviously technical difficulty, as what could be more different than spermatic vein ligation for varicocele compared with pyeloplasty with a resection suture according to Kuss, in which the surgeon must be skilled in laparoscopic suture, running suture and interrupted sutures, and must be able to perform a functional operation whose end result will be assessed in the long term.

Technical difficulty is evaluated on a scale of 1 to 7. Score 1 corresponds to the technical difficulty of diagnostic laparoscopy for impalpable testis, while score 7 corresponds to maximum technical difficulty (e.g. radical prostatectomy).

Operative risk (7, 13): The second assessment criterion concerns operative risk, related to the particular degree of danger of the operation. A slightly 'engaged' operation is an operation associated with a minimum risk of mortality, in which a salvage conversion can be easily performed, with no risk for the patient and without jeopardizing the end result of the operation. Consequently, pyeloplasty is a slightly 'engaged', 'low risk' operation, because, in the event of technical difficulty, conversion to a conventional, open approach allows the objective to be achieved (e.g. repair of the ureteropelvic junction). There is therefore a 'way out' for the surgeon, without jeopardizing the end result of the operation.

In contrast, an operation is 'engaged' and 'high risk', when a poorly executed procedure or a particular anatomical or pathological situation can cause the death of the patient. Thus, surgery involving vessels (simple or radical nephrectomy, lumboaortic lymphadenectomy, etc.) constitutes 'high risk' surgery because damage to large vessels (iliac vessels, vena cava or aorta) can cause extremely severe morbidity, or even the patient's death, even when surgical conversion is decided rapidly. This degree of 'engagement' is also further scored

from 1 to 7. Score 1 corresponds to minimal engagement (e.g. repair of varicocele), while score 7 corresponds to lumboaortic lymphadenectomy for residual masses after chemotherapy of a non-seminomatous germ-cell tumour.

Sustained nature: The third (and most subjective) criterion evaluates the sustained nature of the operation (i.e. the degree of attention and concentration required by the operation). Some operations, such as radical prostatectomy, require permanent attention due to the existence of technical difficulties and/or operative risk at each step of the procedure, while other operations, such as adrenalectomy, remain 'difficult' only for a relatively limited period of time, until the renal pedicle has been identified and the adrenal vein has been clipped. The sustained nature is also scored from 1 to 7.

Scoring system

Each urological procedure is given an overall score, which is the sum of the individual scores given to the different criteria - technical difficulty, operative risk and sustained attention - with each criterion being scored from 1 to 7 (Table 2.7). The overall score of the three criteria is then used to classify each operation according to one of six increasing levels of global difficulty (Table 2.8). Only procedures currently performed and accepted in the urological community have been described, according to the personal experiences of the EAU Laparoscopic Working Group and on the basis of the international literature.

Date: 2016-06-13; view: 6