264 Chapter 10 show Expert 1 was able to correctly predict the postoperative potency in 83.3% (10/12) of the patients (p = 0.015). Expert 1 was undetermined about one patient. Expert 2 was able to correctly predict the postoperative potency in 58.3% (7/12) of the patients. Expert 2 was undetermined about one patient. Interobserver agreement in the prediction of potency by two expert surgeons For the potency group, Cohen’s kappa level of interobserver agreement on predicted potency between Expert 1 and Expert 2 was poor at -0.241 Factors predicting continency and potency according to the analysis of two expert surgeons The experts predicted the expected potency in all patients. They were able to identify some factors in patients that they felt had an influence on the potency of the patients. In case of potency, a higher quality of NVB preservation leads to better erections according to the experts, and the method of haemostasis during NVB preservation (the use of the stapler, metal clips, Hem-o-lock clips, or coagulation) were mentioned as factors influencing the level of postoperative potency in patients (Appendix C). Surgical skills analysis using different methods of video assessment templates. The GEARS, PACE and PROTEST assessment methods were used to determine whether aspects of task performance as measured by assessment templates can be related to postoperative outcomes. Using the GEARS assessment method, depth perception, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, force sensitivity, autonomy and robotic control were assessed. The results of the GEARS assessment analysis of the impotent and potent patients are shown in Supplementary Data 1. No significant differences between groups with regard to the GEARS assessment method were found. Table 2: Results of the predictions by Expert 1 and Expert 2, presenting the prediction of potency based on apical dissection and urethro-vesical anastomosis in patients in potent vs. impotent patients. P-value calculated using Fisher’s Exact Test. Patients included,, n=12 (%) P-value Expert 1 correct assessment 8 (66.7) 0.048 Expert 1: undetermined 3 (25.0) Expert 2: correct assessment 4 (33.3) 1.000 Expert 2: undetermined 3 (25.0)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw