Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41169311›Full record

ArticleJTCVS open2025

Exploring and analyzing learning curves in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jade Qu, Leanne Harling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JTCVS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

2 authors.

Jade QuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Leanne HarlingDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: There has been a steady increase in the uptake of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery over recent years, with a necessary focus on training. The early learning curve has been extensively debated; however, a detailed understanding of how this extends as we gain experience has been poorly discussed. This study assesses the congruency and depth of the learning curve in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery of anatomical lung resection. Methods: All studies reporting a quantitative assessment of operator learning curve in robotic anatomical lung resection before March 1, 2024, were included. Two authors extracted data, and study quality was assessed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modeling. Results: Twenty-nine studies including 106 surgeons were identified. A triphasic learning curve was identified with "competency" achieved at 20 (interquartile range, 13) cases, and "proficiency" at 60 (interquartile range, 37.5) cases. Weighted mean difference operating time between novice (P1) and proficiency (P2) was 34.1 minutes and between "competency" (P2) and "proficiency" (P3) was 17.5 minutes. This decreased with newer generations of robotic technology (Da Vinci Xi, weighted mean difference P1 vs P3: 42.3 [22.0, 62.5] vs S/Si, 57.4 [45.6, 69.2] minutes). Conclusions: The learning curve in anatomical lung resection is triphasic, with a reproducible extension beyond the initial proficiency phase. As robotic lung resection becomes more widespread, we must better understand the translation of this learning pattern among trainee surgeons to maintain excellence in clinical outcomes while facilitating training of the next generation.

Indexed as

anatomical lung resectionCUSUMlearning curveslobectomyrobot-assisted surgerysegmentectomy

Identifiers

PMID41169311
PMCPMC12570577

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.