Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42126684›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026

Robotic versus laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis learning curve: a systematic review.

Sunny Dhadlie, Kirsten Larkins, Tayla Fay, David Proud, Satish Warrier, Alexander Heriot, Helen Mohan

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Sunny DhadlieDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. sunny.dhadlie@austin.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1502-7607
Kirsten LarkinsDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7173-259X
Tayla FayDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9051-5582
David ProudDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Satish WarrierDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Alexander HeriotDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Helen MohanDepartment of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery is increasingly characterised. However, the specific learning curve for intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) remains poorly defined. This review compares robotic and laparoscopic IA with respect to operative time, cases required for proficiency, complication rates, and conversion to extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered on Open science framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K4MYZ ). On March 18, 2025, OVID and PubMed were searched using the search terms; "laparoscopic," "robotic," "anastomosis," "learning," "education," and "training." Yielding a total of 273 results from PubMed (179) and OVID (94). After screening a total of thirteen studies were included. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria, including eight comparative analyses and six directly comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Four studies evaluated robotic learning curves without a comparator group, while one was a literature review incorporating institutional experience. Most studies were retrospective (n = 8), with two prospective clinical studies and two experimental simulation-based studies. Hybrid approaches (robotic mobilisation with laparoscopic EA) contributed to heterogeneity (Reitz et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6074-7 ). Learning curve assessment was heterogeneous, with most studies using cumulative sum (CUSUM) or risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) analyses based on operative time or technical performance metrics. Proficiency in robotic IA was reported after approximately 11-29 cases in some series and around 20 cases in others, although larger studies of robotic colorectal surgery demonstrated broader ranges of up to 100 cases. Robotic right hemicolectomy with IA demonstrated a shorter learning curve and reduced anastomosis time compared with laparoscopic IA. Complication rates, conversion rates, and oncological outcomes were comparable between approaches (Gachabayov et al. 2019, Surg Technol Int, 34:163-168). Robotic intracorporeal anastomosis, particularly in right hemicolectomy, appears to have a shorter and less technically demanding learning curve compared with laparoscopic techniques, without compromising safety or oncological outcomes. These findings support a potential role for robotic platforms in facilitating adoption of intracorporeal anastomosis. However, current evidence is limited by retrospective design, small cohorts, and inconsistent definitions of proficiency (Gachabayov et al. 2019, Surg Technol Int, 34:163-168; Van Eetvelde et al. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01514-6 ).

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalLaparoscopyLearning CurveRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceColorectal Surgical ProceduresHumansOperative TimeIntracorporeal anastomosisLearning curveMinimally invasive colorectal surgeryRobotic colorectal surgeryRobotic surgerySurgical training

Identifiers

PMID42126684
PMCPMC13171925

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.