ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic colorectal surgery: making sense of the learning curve.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgeon- and procedure-specific variability in operative-time learning curves during parallel implementation of robotic colorectal surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Genetic Insights into Interleukin-13 Polymorphisms in Colorectal Cancer Risk and Progression.Cancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soft tissue surgical robots are leader-follower systems, with a learning curve for the surgeons. This is a key consideration when initiating a robotic service. This timely review synthesises the evidence. A systematic search captured studies in robotic colorectal surgery learning curves using cumulative summation (CUSUM) methodology. 39 studies were included (5684 patients). Most studies were single-surgeon (67%), single-centre (92%), using da Vinci robots (97%), with 30–662 patients. CUSUM was time-based (total operating time, console time), or ‘risk adjusted’ (RA-CUSUM) to cumulate surgical ‘success’ and ‘failure’. Most learning curves had 1 or 2 inflection points, implying 2 (49%) or 3 phases (46%), respectively. The first inflection occurred after 3-110 cases; the second inflection, if present, after a further 9–93 cases (12–137 cases overall). There was heterogeneity in prior surgical experience, patient characteristics, and case-mix. Some studies investigated learning curves for procedural components (docking time, operative steps). Across studies, study size correlated with cases to first (p < 0.001) and second inflection (p < 0.05), with line-of-best-fit slopes 0.08 and 0.13, respectively. Learning curves are highly variable in morphology and cases to inflection. Patient, surgeon, training, and hospital factors likely affect this. A novel finding is the significant correlation between study size and location of CUSUM inflection. This highlights a key methodological artefact rather than a purely skill-related phenomenon. Caution should therefore be exercised when interpreting inflection points as thresholds of proficiency or safety. This artefact and the heterogeneity in learning contexts limits generalisability and use in robotic service planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41772296What 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.