Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41772296›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026

Robotic colorectal surgery: making sense of the learning curve.

Atanu Pal, Malaka Jayawardene

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Atanu PalCambridge Colorectal Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. atanu.pal@doctors.org.uk.
Malaka JayawardeneCambridge Colorectal Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Learning CurveRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceColorectal Surgical ProceduresHumansOperative TimeColorectal surgeryCUSUMLearning curveLearning phasesRobot-assisted surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.