ArticleCureus2023
The Impact of Modified Two-Surgeon Technique for Laparoscopic Liver Resection on the Training of Surgeons-in-Training.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery.Annals of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade, it is associated with a much steeper learning curve than other laparoscopic procedures. We currently perform a modified two-surgeon technique for LLR. We assessed the effect of our LLR technique on the surgical outcome and the learning curve of surgeons-in-training when pure non-anatomical LLR was performed. Methods Between 2017 and 2021, 118 LLRs were conducted at our institution, 42 of which were pure non-anatomical LLRs performed by five surgeons-in-training (with a career of 6-13 years). The perioperative outcomes of these cases were compared to those performed by the board-certified attending surgeon. Regarding the learning curve of surgeons-in-training, the duration of operation was used as an index of the proficiency level, and the number of surgical cases in which the surgeons reached the median duration of operation was examined. Results Mortality was zero, and neither postoperative bleeding nor bile leak was experienced in the whole cohort. There were no differences between surgeons-in-training and the board-certified surgeon in the duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, rate of postoperative complications, or length of postoperative stay (LOS). Among the operations performed by five surgeons-in-training, the rate of LLR with a difficulty score of 4 or higher was 52% (30%-75%). Concerning the learning curve, all five surgeons-in-training gradually shortened the duration of operation for each additional case and reached the median duration (218 minutes) by experiencing a median of five cases (3-8 cases). Conclusion A modified two-surgeon technique during LLR is feasible, with a relatively low number of cases (five cases) required to shorten the duration of operation in non-anatomical LLR. This technique is safe and beneficial to the education of surgeons-in-training.
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.