ArticleScientific reports2024
Concomitant training in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections of low-to-intermediate difficulty score: a retrospective analysis of the learning curve.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted radical resection versus open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of robotic repeat hepatectomy compared to laparoscopic and open repeat hepatectomy: a retrospective comparative study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Transition from laparoscopic to robotic hepatectomy within a minimally invasive liver surgery program: risk-adjusted learning curve assessment by multiple continuous outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- National utilization of minimally invasive and open liver resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Benchmarking performance in robotic liver resection: are we measuring what matters?Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Seeing the invisible: Three-dimensional liver modeling from simulation to the scalpel.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Review
- Evaluation of 350 robotic liver resections performed by an early adopter in laparoscopic liver surgery: clinical outcomes and critical appraisal of the learning curve.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Learning curve for robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repair determined by cumulative analysis of adjusted operative times.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Learning curve analysis of 100 consecutive robotic liver resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Recurrence and survival after robotic vs laparoscopic liver resection in very-early to early-stage (BCLC 0-A) hepatocellular carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Transabdominal Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy and CT-Guided Percutaneous Cryoablation for the Treatment of De Novo Kidney Tumors After Liver Transplantation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Application of Robotic Surgery in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Review
- A Decade of Experience Between Open and Minimally Invasive Hepatectomies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the setting of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), training in robotic liver resections (RLR) usually follows previous experience in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The aim of our study was to assess the learning curve of RLR in case of concomitant training with LLR. We analyzed consecutive RLRs and LLRs by a surgeon trained simultaneously in both techniques (Surg1); while a second surgeon trained only in LLRs was used as control (Surg2). A regression model was used to adjust for confounders and a Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was carried out to assess the learning phases according to operative time and difficulty of the procedures (IWATE score). Two-hundred-forty-five procedures were identified (RobSurg1, n = 75, LapSurg1, n = 102, LapSurg2, n = 68). Mean IWATE was 4.0, 4.3 and 5.8 (p < 0.001) in each group. The CUSUM analysis of the adjusted operative times estimated the learning phase in 40 cases (RobSurg1), 40 cases (LapSurg1), 48 cases (LapSurg2); for IWATE score it was 38 cases (RobSurg1), 33 cases (LapSurg1), 38 cases (LapSurg2) respectively. Our preliminary experience showed a similar learning curve of 40 cases for low and intermediate difficulty RLR and LLR. Concomitant training in both techniques was safe and may be a practical option for starting a MILS program.
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.