220 Chapter 8 the daily practice of RARP surgeons worldwide and a significant number of urologists were invited for the survey. Although the experts originated from 15 different countries, the majority of surgeons who completed the questionnaire came from western European country’s. Although it is possible that we missed urologists who use postoperative results analysis and surgical video review, we expect that, since the responses of these participants were homogenous, the results in this study represent a near complete overview on the topic. Potentially, 63 more respondents could have given their insight into video review analysis. Two respondents did not fully answer the video review questions. Suggestions for future research Although there is some discrepancy between the results of this study and the results of our previous Delphi survey amongst Dutch experts1, the results of the present study give additional insights into the acceptance of postoperative results analysis and surgical video review amongst European experts in RARP. The level of detail in the surgical and anatomical factors indicated by the experts gives more insight into which specific factors experts assume to be associated with surgical complications and negative functional outcomes. This information can give rise to additional fields of research such as the training of artificial intelligence to recognize surgical errors and events in order to help in the selection of surgical videos for review. Additionally, factors identified by the experts could be used to train human observers or Machine learning algorithms to observe and analyse the surgical videos, and to evaluate whether the relation between postoperative outcomes and the factors identified by the experts could be objectified.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw