ArticleCurrent urology2013
Developing a robotic prostatectomy service and a robotic fellowship programme - defining the learning curve.
Article in Current urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Learning curves in laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery: a systematic search and review.World journal of urology · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence of haptic feedback in robot-mediated surgery: a systematic review of literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- A comparison of operative and margin outcomes from surgeon learning curves in robot assisted radical prostatectomy in a changing referral practice.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2018Trial
- Learning Curves in Robotic Urological Oncological Surgery: Has Anything Changed During the Last Five Years?Cancers · 2025Review
- Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy-impact of a mentorship program on oncological outcomes during the learning curve.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Learning Curves for Robotic Surgery: a Review of the Recent Literature.Current urology reports · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobotic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is an established treatment for prostate cancer in selected centres with appropriate expertise. We studied our single-centre experience of developing a RRP service and subsequent training of 2 additional surgeons by the initial surgeon and the introduction of United Kingdom's first nationally accredited robotic fellowship training programme. We assessed the learning curve of the 3 surgeons with regard to peri-operative outcomes and oncological results. PATIENTS AND
methodsThree hundred consecutive patients underwent RRP between November 2008 and August 2012. Patients were divided into 3 equal groups (Group 1, case 1-100; Group 2, case 101-200; and Group 3, case 201-300). Age, ASA score, preoperative co-morbidities and indications for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were comparable for all 3 patient groups. Peri-operative and oncological outcomes were compared across all 3 groups to assess the impact of the learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. All surgical complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo system.
resultsThe mean age was 60.7 years (range 41-74). There was a significant reduction in the mean console time (p < 0.001), operating time (p < 0.001), mean length of hospital stay (p < 0.001) and duration of catheter (p < 0.001) between the 3 groups as the series progressed. The two most important factors predictive of positive surgical margins (PSM) at RRP were the initial prostate specific antigen (PSA) and tumor stage at diagnosis. The overall PSM rate was 26.7%. For T2/T3 tumors the incidence of PSM reduced as the series progressed (Group 1-22%, Group 2-32% and Group 3-26%). The incidence of major complications i.e. grade Clavien-Dindo system score ≤ III was 2% (6/300).
conclusionRRP is a safe procedure with low morbidity. As surgeons progress through the learning curve peri-operative parameters and oncological outcomes improve. This learning curve is not affected by the introduction of a fellowship-training programme. Using a carefully structured mentored approach, RRP can be safely introduced as a new procedure without compromising patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.