243 Identifying surgical factors predicting postoperative urinary continence in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy fact that our study did not show this difference is the sample size. It is possible further research in larger groups of patients could give more insight into the relation between the different factors of the assessment methods and postoperative outcomes. Limitations Our study is a retrospective study in which patients of a single surgeon were analysed. The sample size was based on the difference between novice and expert surgeon, since in this study the comparison was made in one expert surgeon the sample size might be to small. We tried to reduce the influence of selection bias by matching the patient subgroups. Since no perfect matches existed in the continency group best alternatives were sought. . Since the experts had different focus points during the assessment of the videos (i.e. the influence of bladder neck vs. coagulation of the urethra) it remains difficult to say if the differences in outcomes are related to the field of interest of the experts. Another explanation of the difference could lie in the fact that expert 1 is the surgeon who performed the surgery, it could be that since he is more familiar with his own techniques and outcomes and could there for assess the patient’s postoperative status more accurately. Although we did not expect any sequence effects in the templated assessments of the surgical videos, the results could have been influenced by the sequence of assessment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw