ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparison of learning curve difference of laparoscopist according to controller type of flexible scope during laparoscopic liver resection.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), a skilled scopist is essential for maintaining a clear operative view. We evaluated the scopist's expertise on surgical outcomes and whether the flexible scope controller type (conventional dual-lever versus joystick) influences the scopist's learning curve.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed LLRs performed by a single surgeon between December 2021 and March 2023. Patients with prior hepatectomy, Child-Pugh class B/C, concurrent extrahepatic abdominal surgery, or laparoscopic donor hepatectomy were excluded. Expert scopists (n = 2) had > 7 years of experience, whereas beginner scopists (n = 2) had < 6 months. Outcomes were compared by expertise and scope type. Learning curves were assessed using linear regression and CUSUM analysis of operative time over case sequence.
resultsAmong 161 LLRs, 82 were performed with expert scopists and 79 with beginner scopists. Compared with the expert group, the beginner group had longer operative time (178.0 vs 139.5 min, p < 0.001), more intraoperative transfusions (8.9% vs 0%, p = 0.006), and a higher open conversion rate (6.3% vs 0%, p = 0.012). In 116 procedures using conventional scopes (experts, n = 57; beginners, n = 59), experts had shorter operative time (144.0 vs 178.0 min, p = 0.002) and fewer transfusions (0% vs 11.9%, p = 0.013). In 45 procedures using joystick scopes, operative time and transfusion rates did not differ significantly between expert and beginner scopists. In major hepatectomy, both groups showed decreasing operative time with joystick scopes. In minor hepatectomy, experts had shorter operative time with conventional scopes, whereas no significant difference was observed with joystick scopes.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that the proficiency of laparoscopists can affect surgical outcomes. Moreover, newly learning laparoscopists may acquire proficiency more rapidly when using joystick-controlled laparoscopes compared to conventional ones. In procedures like minor hepatectomy, which are relatively simpler, it was confirmed that there is no significant difference in proficiency when compared to expert scopists.
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.