Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26423674›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2016

The Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Low Rectal Resection of a Novice Rectal Surgeon.

Chi Chung Foo, Wai Lun Law

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016
    Pooled it
  8. Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  9. Learning Curve in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Chi Chung FooDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong. ccfoo@hku.hk.
Wai Lun LawDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the increasing availability of the surgical robotic system, the young generation colorectal surgeons may learn robotic-assisted rectal surgery upfront. There are currently very limited studies evaluating the learning curve of novice rectal surgeons.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the learning curve of a surgeon who had limited experience in open and laparoscopic rectal surgery.

methodsThirty-nine consecutive robotic-assisted total mesorectal excisions were performed from March 2013 to October 2014. All cases were performed by a single surgeon whose prior experience in open or laparoscopic low rectal cancer resections was <5 cases. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method.

resultsThirty-four low anterior resections, four abdomino-perineal resections, and one Hartmann's operation were performed. The mean total operating time was 397.2 ± 184.3 min. There was no conversion. The major complication rate was 10.3 %. When total operating time was analyzed with the CUSUM method, three phases could be identified. They are the initial eight cases, middle 17 cases, and the final 14 cases. The first phase consisted of more proximal tumors (86.3 ± 20.7 vs. 58.0 ± 34.9 mm from anal verge, p = 0.04) and was associated with a shorter total operating time (243.5 ± 38.0 vs. 540.9 ± 133.4 min, p = 0.000) and less estimated blood loss (81.3 ± 25.9 vs. 168.8 ± 99.5 ml, p = 0.02) compared to the second phase. When the third phase is compared with the first and second phase, it has shorter total operating time (310.6 ± 164.5 vs. 44 5.7 ± 179.8 min, p = 0.03). Complications rate were 12.5, 17.6, and 0 % for phase one, two, and three respectively.

conclusionsIn this study, the learning curve for a novice rectal surgeon was 25 cases. This is comparable to those who have already mastered the technique with laparoscopic or open approach. Surgical robotic system may have a role in shortening the learning curve for low rectal resection.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryLaparoscopyLearning CurveOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnal CanalBlood Loss, SurgicalDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRectal Neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.