Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38920042›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2024

Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery.

Christoph Kuemmerli, Johannes M A Toti, Fabian Haak, Adrian T Billeter, Felix Nickel, Cristiano Guidetti, Martin Santibanes, Luca Vigano, Joël L Lavanchy, Otto Kollmar and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. International Benchmark Values for Robotic Right Hepatectomy: Multicenter Study From 22 Expert Centers.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    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

17 authors.

Christoph KuemmerliDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Johannes M A TotiDepartment of Surgery, Regional Hospital of Bellinzona e Valli, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Fabian HaakDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Adrian T BilleterDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Cristiano GuidettiHepato-pancreato-biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Martin SantibanesDepartment of Surgery, Division of HPB Surgery, Liver and Transplant Unit, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Luca ViganoDivision of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center - IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.
Joël L LavanchyDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Otto KollmarDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Daniel SeehoferDepartment of Visceral, Transplant, Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Mohammed Abu HilalDepartment of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, Brescia, Italy.
Fabrizio Di BenedettoHepato-pancreato-biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Pierre-Alain ClavienDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Transplantation, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Philipp DutkowskiDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Beat P MüllerDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.
Philip C MüllerDepartment of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim was to analyze the learning curves of minimal invasive liver surgery(MILS) and propose a standardized reporting. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MILS offers benefits compared to open resections. For a safe introduction along the learning curve, formal training is recommended. However, definitions of learning curves and methods to assess it lack standardization.

methodsA systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in MILS. The primary outcome was the number needed to overcome the learning curve. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, and characterization of different learning phases(competency, proficiency and mastery).

results60 articles with 12'241 patients and 102 learning curve analyses were included. The laparoscopic and robotic approach was evaluated in 71 and 18 analyses and both approaches combined in 13 analyses. Sixty-one analyses (60%) based the learning curve on statistical calculations. The most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n=64), blood loss (n=54), conversion (n=42) and postoperative complications (n=38). Overall competency, proficiency and mastery were reached after 34 (IQR 19-56), 50 (IQR 24-74), 58 (IQR 24-100) procedures respectively. Intraoperative parameters improved earlier (operative time: competency to proficiency to mastery: -13%, 2%; blood loss: competency to proficiency to mastery: -33%, 0%; conversion rate (competency to proficiency to mastery; -21%, -29%), whereas postoperative complications improved later (competency to proficiency to mastery: -25%, -41%).

conclusionsThis review summarizes the highest evidence on learning curves in MILS taking into account different definitions and confounding factors. A standardized three-phase reporting of learning phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is proposed and should be followed.

Identifiers

PMID38920042
PMCPMC11723502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.