ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Institutional proficiency and learning curves in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective analysis using the cumulative sum method.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of surgical assistance by Japanese nurse practitioners in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Bibliometric mapping of transoral robotic surgery literature (2005-2025): disciplinary maturation, global research architecture, and emerging knowledge domains.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted hip and knee replacement in NHS scotland: trends and efficiency implications (2020-2024).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) has advanced the field of minimally invasive thoracic surgery. Its learning curve is reportedly shorter than that of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. However, few studies have examined how institutional proficiency evolves with the introduction of new surgeons and how this transition impacts surgical outcomes in RATS. This single-center retrospective study, conducted at a university hospital in Japan, included 154 patients who underwent RATS lobectomy between November 2018 and May 2024. The study population consisted of four thoracic surgeons at different stages of RATS experience. Operative metrics and learning curves were evaluated using the cumulative sum method. Trends in operating time, console time, blood loss, and non-console time were analyzed to assess surgeon-specific performance, and complications, if any, were recorded. The mean operating time was 206.5 min, console time was 153.3 min, and mean blood loss was 23.9 g. The lead surgeon demonstrated a typical upward convex learning curve, whereas subsequent surgeons showed smaller peaks. Non-console time increased during transitions between surgeons. Postoperative complications occurred in 13 patients, none of whom required conversion to thoracotomy. Mechanical malfunctions were noted in 11 cases and were resolved without significant delays. This study demonstrated that introducing new surgeons did not compromise institutional proficiency, indicating effective skill transfer. Optimizing training strategies to reduce early inefficiencies remains an important goal. In conclusion, structured training and workflow support may help maintain institutional proficiency during the expansion of RATS programs. Further prospective studies are recommended to validate training models and promote consistent surgical outcomes.
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.