SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
The learning curve of robotic esophagectomy: a systematic review with a proposed training and competency assessment framework.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Background: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is a significant evolution in esophageal cancer surgery, providing improved visualization, dexterity and operative precision. However, RAMIE is technically demanding and has a steep learning curve. The goal of this systematic review was to assess the existing evidence on the learning curve of robotic esophagectomy and to develop a structured training and assessment framework for RAMIE. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2026 according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. Studies that assessed the learning curve or implementation of robotic esophagectomy in adult patients were included. The outcomes included proficiency thresholds, operative time, recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, complications, lymph node harvest, and factors affecting learning progression. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: We included 25 studies published between 2013 and 2026. Most studies were retrospective observational cohorts from high-volume centers in East Asia, Europe and North America. The most common assessment methodologies of the learning curve were based on cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Typically, initial proficiency was attained after approximately 20-50 cases across studies, but stabilization of complications and optimization of oncologic quality often required higher procedural volumes. Increasing surgeon's experience was associated with improvements in operative time, RLN injury, lymph node harvest, conversion rates, and postoperative complications. Prior experience in minimally invasive esophagectomy, structured proctoring pathways, high institutional volume, and team-based implementation models consistently enabled more rapid proficiency acquisition and safer RAMIE implementation. Conclusions: The learning curve for robotic esophagectomy is steep, but attainable. Structured training programs, dedicated robotic teams, and standardized implementation pathways may shorten the learning curve and enhance patient safety. Learning curve progression appears to be influenced by factors beyond case volume alone, supporting the development of structured training and assessment frameworks during RAMIE implementation. Based on the available evidence, we propose an evidence-informed expert framework that should be considered hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation. Prospective multicenter studies and standardized reporting of learning curves are required to optimize training in robotic esophageal surgery and to establish universally accepted thresholds of proficiency. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261417234.
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.