ArticleSurgical endoscopy2009
Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: lessons from 1,000 cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Learning curves in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Pooled it
- Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Pooled it
- SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Guideline
- Effect of the Specific Training Course for Competency in Doing Arterial Blood Gas Sampling in the Intensive Care Unit: Developing a Standardized Learning Curve according to the Procedure's Time and Socioprofessional Predictors.BioMed research international · 2021Trial
- Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches to Colorectal Cancer: Learning Curve and Cost Considerations.Cancers · 2026Review
- Automatic surgical skill assessment using a task classification model in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- An initial exploratory clinical study and outcome assessment of gastrointestinal surgeries using advanced robotic-assisted techniques.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Change point analysis validation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Experience from a non-structured training setting.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer, a look back to look forward: a personal history.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2022Article
- Effect of specific training course for competency in professional oral hygiene care in the intensive care unit: a quasi-experimental study for developing a standardized learning curve.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Update on Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2021Review
- Article
- Well-trained gynecologic oncologists can perform bowel resection and upper abdominal surgery safely.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2020Article
- The effect of proctoring on the learning curve of transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasms.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Article
- Analysis of Early and Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Converted Laparoscopic Resection Compared to Primary Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer.World journal of surgery · 2018Article
- Risk Factors for Conversion and Morbidity During Initial Experience in Laparoscopic Proctectomies: a Retrospective Study.The Indian journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Laparoscopy for Rectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe consider quality of surgery throughout the learning curve and attempt to determine the learning curve for competency in performing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
methodsThe study included 1,014 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection between June 1996 and December 2007. We categorized patients into nine periods according to number of cases performed.
resultsOperative time continuously decreased for right hemicolectomy (216 versus 150 min) and anterior resection (214.8 versus 147.7 min), whereas for low anterior resection it did not change over many periods and then significantly decreased after the ninth period (221.3 versus 176.4 min). The proportion of patients who had undergone previous abdominal surgery increased after the second period. Anastomotic leakage rate was 6-9% for the first 200 cases, and then decreased to less than 2%. More than 10% of operations were converted to open surgery during the first period, after which this rate significantly decreased to 2%. Number of harvested lymph nodes stabilized to 35-40 for right hemicolectomy after 200 cases, whereas for anterior and low anterior resection it was consistently 15-20 after the initial 20 cases. Overall, disease recurrence rate was 16-25%. For rectal cancer, local recurrence rate was highest (12%) in the fourth period and decreased thereafter to about 3%.
conclusionPostoperative complications and local recurrence rate increased even after accumulation of experience because of expansion of indications for laparoscopic procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19116741What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.