ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023
Characteristics of the learning curve in robotic thoracic surgery in an emerging country.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is not established which factors impact the learning curve (LC) in robotic thoracic surgery (RTS), especially in emerging countries. The aim of this study is to analyze LC in RTS in Brazil and identify factors that can accelerate LC. We selected the first cases of two Brazilian surgeons who started their LC. We used CUSUM and the Lowess technique to measure LC for each surgeon and Poisson regression to assess factors associated with shorter console time (CT). 58 patients were operated by each surgeon and included in the analysis. Surgeries performed were different: Surgeon I (SI) performed 54 lobectomies (93.11%), whereas Surgeon II (SII) had a varied mix of cases. SI was proctored in his first 10 cases (17.24%), while SII in his first 41 cases (70.68%). The mean interval between surgeries was 8 days for SI and 16 days for SII. There were differences in the LC phases of the two surgeons, mainly regarding complications and conversions. There was shorter CT by 30% in the presence of a proctor, and by 20% with the Da Vinci Xi. Mix of cases did not seem to contribute to faster LC. Higher frequency between surgeries seems to be associated with a faster curve. Presence of proctor and use of bolder technologies reduced console time. We wonder if in phase 3 it is necessary to keep a proctor on complex cases to avoid serious complications. More studies are necessary to understand which factors impact the LC.
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.