ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Limitations of procedural learning curves: reassessment of the clinical relevance of learning curve analysis in robotic right hemicolectomy.
Article 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning curves in robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) are assessed using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. CUSUM was originally designed for industrial processes using external benchmarks. Medical applications rely on internal benchmarks, typically the cohort-specific median. This introduces circularity, obscures early deviations and distorts inflection points. In addition, phase definitions are based on procedural metrics with limited linkage to clinical outcomes. Current models may not reflect surgical proficiency. Data were drawn from a prospectively maintained institutional database covering RRH procedures performed between 2010 and 2025; after exclusions, 229 cases remained for analysis. Cases were split into a training group (TG; n = 164) and a control group (CG; n = 65), the latter comprising procedures by two surgeons already in their mastery phase and used as an external benchmark (EB). Learning-curve analysis of RRH referenced against this EB formed the primary endpoint, while RA-CUSUM analysis and perioperative outcome parameters were assessed as secondary endpoints. Application of the external benchmark approach revealed a prolonged initial learning phase (approximate transition zone 35-55 cases). Major complications, conversion rate, blood loss, and length of stay showed the steepest changes initially, with stabilization thereafter, while lymph node yield reached an early plateau. Operative time demonstrated a continuous increase throughout. Compared with previously reported analyses, learning phases were extended and showed different patterns when clinical outcomes were considered. The prolonged first learning phase for RRH indicates delayed perioperative proficiency. Learning curve analysis should shift to a clinically driven approach with external benchmark methodology. Benchmark values are institution-specific; the methodology may serve as a conceptual framework for future analyses.
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.