Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39176181›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review.

Md Rezaul Karim, Amos E Kong, Noor Mohammad, Riddhi N Shah, Bijendra Patel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Establishment and Application of a Grading Management Model for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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

5 authors.

Md Rezaul KarimSurgery, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, GBR.
Amos E KongSurgical Science, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, GBR.
Noor MohammadTrauma and Orthopaedics, Royal London Hospital, London, GBR.
Riddhi N ShahSurgery, Royal London Hospital, London, GBR.
Bijendra PatelSurgery, Queen Mary University of London, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic surgery has undergone much development and increased use over the years; it has offered many benefits for the operating surgeon compared to the more restrictive nature of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) which is the current standard of care. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have attempted to draw a comparison between the two in terms of the cases required for the learning curve to be achieved. The systematic review was performed at Barts Cancer Institute. A search of Cochrane, PubMed and Embase was made on 15 March 2024. Screening and risk of bias were done by two reviewers. Screening was done via the eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Data collection was done using Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, USA) and information was double-checked by another reviewer and transferred into a tabulated format. Seventeen studies were included, with the learning curve reported in 14 studies. The cases required to achieve the learning curve for multiport robotic cholecystectomy (MRC) ranged from 16 to 134 and for single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC), it ranged from 10 to over 102 cases. Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was from 7 to 200. The improvement in operating times was measured in very different ways and was reported in 10 of the 17 studies. The studies that were available had a high level of heterogeneity making it difficult for comparisons to be made between studies. Several studies included only one surgeon resulting in the sample size of surgeons being too small and vulnerable to bias. As robotic surgery is still relatively novel, higher-quality studies have to be made in order for more conclusive conclusions to be made on the benefits of the learning curve of MRC and SSRC.

Indexed as

laparoscopic surgerylap cholecystectomylearning curvelearning outcomerobotic assisted cholecystectomyrobotic cholecystectomyrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39176181
PMCPMC11339721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.