ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Defining proficiency in THD-Anolift: a CUSUM analysis of the learning curve in 51 consecutive cases.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) with Anolift mucopexy is a validated non-excisional procedure for hemorrhoidal disease. Although surgeon experience is acknowledged as a determinant of THD outcomes, no formal learning curve analysis exists. This study aimed to characterize the learning curve of a single surgeon adopting THD-Anolift.
methodsRetrospective analysis of 60 consecutive THD-Anolift cases (May 2023-February 2026). Nine patients with incomplete outcome data were excluded, leaving 51 for analysis. Median follow-up was 12 months (range 3-33). Cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts were constructed for a composite failure endpoint (recurrence and/or any complication) and for operative time. The proficiency point was identified at the CUSUM inflection. Sensitivity analyses included CUSUM on recurrence alone, CUSUM restricted to recurrence and Clavien-Dindo ≥ II complications, best-case/worst-case imputation for excluded patients, and risk-adjusted CUSUM controlling for hemorrhoid grade and previous procedures.
resultsMedian age was 53 years; 72.5% were male; 80.4% had grade III hemorrhoids. The overall composite failure rate was 37.3% (19/51) and the recurrence rate 15.7% (8/51). Mean operative time was 23.5 ± 7.4 min. The composite outcome CUSUM identified a proficiency point at case 23: the failure rate decreased from 52.2% in Phase 1 (cases 1-23) to 25.0% in Phase 2 (cases 24-51; p = 0.080, not statistically significant at the conventional threshold). Operative time decreased from 27.1 ± 7.4 to 20.4 ± 6.0 min (p < 0.001). On sensitivity analysis, both the recurrence-only CUSUM and the risk-adjusted CUSUM confirmed an identical proficiency point at case 23, and worst-case/best-case imputation for excluded patients moved the inflection only to cases 25 and 22 respectively, indicating that the finding was robust to endpoint definition and case-mix variation, as well as to plausible patterns of missing data.
conclusionsCUSUM analysis identified an inflection at approximately 23 cases, with a statistically significant reduction in operative time and a clinically relevant but underpowered reduction in composite failure that did not reach the conventional threshold for statistical significance. Rather than a fixed competency threshold, these findings provide an initial benchmark to help structure supervised adoption-suggesting that the 10 mentored cases conventionally proposed in industry-sponsored teaching may be insufficient- and to inform future multicenter validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.