SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Learning curve of minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Learning curves in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Limitations of procedural learning curves: reassessment of the clinical relevance of learning curve analysis in robotic right hemicolectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Learning curves and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery: A single-surgeon experience within a structured dual-console training program.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Oncologic standards in colon cancer resection: from margins to lymph node yield and mesentery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Surgeon- and procedure-specific variability in operative-time learning curves during parallel implementation of robotic colorectal surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision, central vascular ligation and hand-sewn intracorporeal anastomosis: feasibility, safety, and learning curve analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer offers oncological advantages but remains technically demanding, which limits its widespread adoption. Understanding the learning curve (LC) for this complex procedure is essential to ensure safe implementation and to guide structured surgical training. This systematic review aims to evaluate the learning curve of minimally invasive CME for right-sided colon cancer, focusing on operative metrics and complications, and estimating the number of cases required to achieve proficiency.
methodsThis systematic review adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024615748). A comprehensive search across six databases included studies utilizing CUSUM analysis to evaluate the LC of minimally invasive CME. Outcomes of interest included operative time, complications, pathological quality, and oncological metrics. Studies with fewer than ten cases or lacking LC focus were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I framework.
resultsSeven studies were included, comprising laparoscopic and robotic CME. Proficiency thresholds ranged from 21 to 32 cases, with consistent reductions in operative time across studies. Complication rates varied (3.6-13%) but remained within acceptable limits in most series. Lymph node harvest was adequate even during early phases, with minor variations between studies. Heterogeneity in study design and reporting limited meta-analysis but highlighted the utility of standardized CUSUM analysis for evaluating LCs.
conclusionsThis review establishes a consistent proficiency plateau for minimally invasive CME at 21-32 cases, supporting its safety and efficacy even during initial phases. However, methodological variability and lack of standardized reporting underscore the need for further research and validated training programs to optimize outcomes and ensure broader adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879778What 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.