ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2025
Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: A national two-centre study.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of proctoring on the learning curve of robotic-assisted low anterior resection: a multicenter retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionColon and rectal surgery was amongst the earliest specialities to adopt robotic surgery, with Weber and Hashizume reporting the first operations for benign and malignant colorectal disease, respectively, in 2002. Although robotic-assisted surgery benefits from technical advantages that shorten the learning curve, it nonetheless presents a steep and extended learning curve. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective study was performed by a surgical team formed from two different departments in Bulgaria, using the da Vinci Si HD robotic system. The patients were divided into two groups: group I - the first 28 patients without indocyanine green (ICG) use and group II - the next 17 patients with ICG fluorescence imaging to assess bowel perfusion. Correlations between patient characteristics, operation duration, conversions, hospitalisation duration, complications, bleeding, reoperation, type of operation and ICG usage were assessed using multivariate analysis. This research aims to evaluate our learning curve, oncological safety and technical proficiency using the cumulative summation (CUSUM) method. To determine the CUSUM scores for each procedure index, the average console and docking time were taken into account. Subsequently, CUSUM plots were generated for the initial 45 cases.
resultsForty-five patients were included: 32 men (71.1%) and 13 women (28.9%). The procedures performed included 37 anterior resections (82.2%) and 8 (17.8%) abdominoperineal excisions. The operative time was shorter in group II for both the docking and console times. The docking time in group I was 10 min (range, 4-30 min) compared with 9 min (ranging 5-20 min) in group II ( P = 0.691). The console time was 166 min in group I (ranging 45-300 min) and 147 min in group II (ranging 60-235 min) ( P = 0.020).
conclusionA significant reduction in console time was observed after the 28 th case. Anastomotic leaks were not observed in the ICG group. Despite our small patient cohort, we believe our institution contributes to the literature by describing our experience and the learning curve associated with robotic rectal resections.
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.