Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: World J Urol. 2019 Nov 14;38(7):1615–1621. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-03010-3

Table 2.

Comparison of Automatic Performance Metric (APM) Profile between Group A and B (Comparison 1)

APMs Group A Group B p value
n=46 n=53
Median (IQR) Median (IQR)
Console time, min 120 (101–153) 137 (119–161) 0.022*
Dominant instrument
Moving time, min 100 (81–117) 117 (103–136) 0.003*
Velocity, cm/s 1.9 (1.7–2.0) 1.7 (1.6–1.8) 0.003*
Articulation, rad/min 53.2 (49.6–61.6) 46.5 (41.3–51.4) <0.001*
Non-dominant instrument
Moving time, min 102 (81–119) 123 (106–140) <0.001*
Velocity, cm/s 1.1 (1.0–1.2) 1.0 (0.9–1.1) 0.084
Articulation, rad/min 29.7 (26.0–40.5) 24.1 (22.5–27.8) <0.001*
Other
Camera movement time, min 5.8 (4.7–8.3) 7.1 (6.3–8.4) 0.018*
Third instrument usage count 319 (167–750) 358 (306–438) 0.029*

Group A: attending surgeon performed at least all cardinal steps of prostatectomy

Group B: trainee performed at least one cardinal step of prostatectomy

*

denotes p < 0.05