ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Learning curve analysis of 100 consecutive robotic liver resections.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resection for BCLC stage 0-I hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies on perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Robotic versus open hepatectomy for IWATE expert-level liver resection: a risk-adjusted comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Implementation of a Robotic Liver Surgery Program in a Large Municipal Hospital: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical, Economic, and Learning Curve Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robotic hepatectomy across IWATE difficulty levels: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery system: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 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
- Robotic liver surgery: a global snapshot. Results from an international survey.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Microvascular Anastomoses and Beyond: Exploring the Role of Robotic Systems in Microneurosurgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- The Hidden Cost of Precision: Financial, Training, and Environmental Trade-Offs in Robotic HPB Surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Better outcomes of robotic liver resection in segment VII/VIII compared to open and laparoscopic approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Reaching proficiency in robotic liver surgery in two high-volume European HPB centers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a narrative review of principles, technical nuances, and emerging strategies.Journal of liver cancer · 2026Review
- Application research of learning curve in the training of pharmacists for the review of narcotic and psychotropic drug prescriptions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A swine model for surgical training in various types of robotic liver resection with surgical videos.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Establishing a Robot-Assisted Liver Surgery Program: Early Experience from University Medical Center Ljubljana.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Study - International multicentric minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR-4) : a comparison of conventional, digitally enhanced and collaborative robotic with Tele-robotic laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Transforming robotic hepatectomy outcomes: a comparative analysis before and after ERAS protocol implementation.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
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
backgroundRobotic liver surgery, as part of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), offers advantages like enhanced dexterity and stable camera and instrument control. However, the learning curve - particularly the number of cases required for proficiency - remains underexplored. This study analyzes 100 consecutive robotic liver resections performed by a single surgeon to assess the learning curve and outcomes. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective analysis reviewed data from the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) from June 2013 to July 2024, to identify surgeons who performed at least 100 robotic liver resections. Operation time and Iwate difficulty score were used as indicators of surgical proficiency and learning progression.
resultsOne surgeon fulfilled the inclusion criteria of performing 100 robotic liver resections. Of these, 41 (41%) were major and 59 (59%) were minor liver resections. A significant reduction in average operation time was observed across the series, decreasing from an initial average of 450 min to approximately 300 min by the 100th operation. Similarly, the Iwate difficulty score showed a significant upward trend, reflecting the increasing technical challenges of the procedures. The learning curve was divided into four distinct phases: Competency (Cases 1-20), Proficiency (Cases 21-30), Early Mastery (Cases 31-65), and Full Mastery (Cases 66-100), highlighting the progression in skill acquisition and case complexity. Major complications (21%), such as bile leak, bilioma, and pulmonary embolism, were observed during the study period.
conclusionOver 100 robotic liver resections, significant learning curve progression was evident, with marked improvements in operation time and handling of complex cases. The results suggest that approximately 65 cases are needed for a surgeon experienced in open and laparoscopic liver surgery to achieve consistent proficiency in robotic liver resections. These findings underscore the importance of standardized training protocols to support the learning curve in robotic liver surgery.
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.