Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

Learning curve in retroperitoneal sarcoma surgery

INTRODUCTION

Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) surgery poses unique challenges. This retrospective study aimed to analyze the learning curve (LC) in RPS surgery, assessing the relationship between surgical experience and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to analyze 62 RPS surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2016 and 2022 at our center.

RESULTS

The number of cases where the surgeon acted as first operator increased from 3 in 2016 to 13 in 2022. The surgeon operated with his mentor in 66.7 % of cases in 2016, whereas in 7.7 % of cases in 2022. LC consisted of 3 phases. Phase 1 (16 cases), with a negative slope, represented shorter operative time (OT) and fewer number of resected organs (RO). Phase 2 (30 cases) was the plateau phase. Phase 3 (16 cases), with a positive slope, indicated longer OT and more RO. Statistically significant differences were observed in terms of size (p = 0.003), presentation (p = 0.048), number of resected organs (p = 0.046), pattern of resection (p = 0.033), OT (p = 0.006), and length of stay (p = 0.026) between the three phases.

CONCLUSION

This study focused on the critical role of LC in RPS surgery, emphasizing its influence on outcomes. We identified three phases, highlighting the surgeon's evolution. This offers a framework for educating sarcoma surgeons and ensuring exposure to increasing surgical complexity. In discussions on sarcoma referral centers and the correlation between case volume and outcomes, this study underlines the importance of evaluating LC to distinguish surgeons qualified to manage sarcoma cases within a referral center.

Economic analysis of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia versus laparoscopic: is it sustainable for the healthcare system?

INTRODUCTION

There has been a rapid proliferation of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia, mainly in the United States, as it has shown similar outcomes to the laparoscopic approach but with a significant increase in associated costs. Our objective is to conduct a cost analysis in our setting (Spanish National Health System).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective single-center comparative study on inguinal hernia repair using a robotic approach versus laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair between October 2021 and July 2023 were analyzed. Out of these 98 patients, 20 (20.4%) were treated with the robotic approach, while 78 (79.6%) underwent the laparoscopic approach. When comparing both approaches, no significant differences were found in terms of complications, recurrences, or readmissions. However, the robotic group exhibited a longer surgical time (86 ± 33.07 min vs. 40 ± 14.46 min, p < 0.001), an extended hospital stays (1.6 ± 0.503 days vs. 1.13 ± 0.727 days, p < 0.007), as well as higher procedural costs (2318.63 ± 205.15 € vs. 356.81 ± 110.14 €, p < 0.001) and total hospitalization costs (3272.48 ± 408.49 € vs. 1048.61 ± 460.06 €, p < 0.001). These results were consistent when performing subgroup analysis for unilateral and bilateral hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits observed in terms of recurrence rates and post-surgical complications do not justify the additional costs incurred by the robotic approach to inguinal hernia within the national public healthcare system. Nevertheless, it represents a simpler way to initiate the robotic learning curve, justifying its use in a training context.

Learning process analysis of robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for local advanced rectal cancer: the CUSUM curve of 78 consecutive patients

PURPOSE

Robotic lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) has been described as a safe and feasible procedure for local advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for robotic-assisted LLND.

METHODS

We collected data on 78 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-LLND at our hospital. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to assess changes in the unilateral LLND operative times across the case sequence.

RESULTS

Among the 78 patients, 52 underwent bilateral LLND and 26 underwent unilateral LLND. A total of 130 consecutive data were recorded. We arranged unilateral robotic-LLND operative times and calculated cumulative sum values, allowing the differentiation of three phases: phase I (learning period, cases 1-51); phase II (proficiency period, cases 52-83); and phase III (mastery period, cases 84-130). As the learning curve accumulated, the operation time and estimated blood loss of unilateral robotic-LLND decreased significantly with each phase (P < 0.05). By 12 months after surgery, the International Prostatic Symptom Score of patients at phase III was significantly lower than at phase I (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The CUSUM curve shows three phases in the learning of robotic-LLND. The estimated learning curve for robotic-assisted rectal-LLND is achieved after 51 cases.

Hospital learning curves for robot-assisted surgeries: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has been rapidly adopted. It is important to define the learning curve to inform credentialling requirements, training programs, identify fast and slow learners, and protect patients. This study aimed to characterize the hospital learning curve for common robot-assisted procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

This cohort study, using administrative health data for Ontario, Canada, included adult patients who underwent a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), total robotic hysterectomy (TRH), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), or robotic portal lobectomy using four arms (RPL-4) between 2010 and 2021. The association between cumulative hospital volume of a robot-assisted procedure and major complications was evaluated using multivariable logistic models adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering at the hospital level.

RESULTS

A total of 6814 patients were included, with 5230, 543, 465, and 576 patients in the RARP, TRH, RAPN, and RPL-4 cohorts, respectively. There was no association between cumulative hospital volume and major complications. Visual inspection of learning curves demonstrated a transient worsening of outcomes followed by subsequent improvements with experience. Operative time decreased for all procedures with increasing volume and reached plateaus after approximately 300 RARPs, 75 TRHs, and 150 RPL-4s. The odds of a prolonged length of stay decreased with increasing volume for patients undergoing a RARP (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.82-0.92) or RPL-4 (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.68-0.87).

CONCLUSION

Hospitals may adopt robot-assisted surgery without significantly increasing the risk of major complications for patients early in the learning curve and with an expectation of increasing efficiency.

Learning curve for single-port robot-assisted colectomy

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of robotic surgery, robots for colorectal cancer have replaced laparoscopic surgery, and a single-port robot (SPR) platform has been launched and is being used to treat patients. We analyzed the learning curve and initial complications of using an SPR platform in colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed 39 patients who underwent SPR colectomy from April to October 2019. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon using an SPR device. A learning curve was generated using the cumulative sum methodology to assess changes in total operation time, docking time, and surgeon console time. We grouped the patients into 3 groups according to the time period: the first 11 were phase 1, the next 11 were phase 2, and the last 17 were phase 3.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 61.28±13.03 years, and they had a mean body mass index of 23.79±2.86 kg/m2. Among the patients, 23 (59.0%) were male, and 16 (41.0%) were female. The average operation time was 186.59±51.30 minutes, the average surgeon console time was 95.49±35.33 minutes, and the average docking time (time from skin incision to robot docking) was 14.87±10.38 minutes. The surgeon console time differed significantly among the different phases (P<0.001). Complications occurred in 8 patients: 2 ileus, 2 postoperation hemoglobin changes, 3 urinary retentions, and 1 complicated fluid collection.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the learning curve for SPR colectomy was achieved after the 18th case.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve

As a novel procedure becomes more and more used, knowledge about its learning curve and its impact on outcomes is useful for future implementations. Our aim is (i) to identify the phases of the robotic rectal surgery learning process and assess the safety and oncological outcomes during that period, (ii) to compare the robotic rectal surgery learning phases outcomes with laparoscopic rectal resections performed before the implementation of the robotic surgery program. We performed a retrospective study, based on a prospectively maintained database, with methodological quality assessment by STROBE checklist. All the procedures were performed by the same two surgeons. A total of 157 robotic rectal resections from June 2018 to January 2022 and 97 laparoscopic rectal resections from January 2018 to July 2019 were included. The learning phase was completed at case 26 for surgeon A, 36 for surgeon B, and 60 for the center (both A & B). There were no differences in histopathological results or postoperative complications between phases, achieving the same ratio of mesorectal quality, circumferential and distal resection margins as the laparoscopic approach. A transitory increase of major complications and anastomotic leakage could occur once overcoming the learning phase, secondary to the progressive complexity of cases. Robotic rectal cancer surgery learning curve phases in experienced laparoscopic surgeons was completed after 25-35 cases. Implementation of a robotic rectal surgery program is safe in oncologic terms, morbidity, mortality and length of stay.

Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis using the Japanese Nationwide diagnosis procedure combination database

Background

The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but its short-term results remain unclear. We compared the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a nationwide inpatient database.

Methods

We analyzed patients registered in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer from April 2018 to March 2020. Postoperative complication rates, anesthesia time, length of hospital stay, and cost were compared using propensity score matching for low anterior resection (LAR), high anterior resection (HAR), and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Results

Among 38 090 rectal cancer cases, 1992 LAR, 357 HAR, and 310 APR pairs were generated by propensity score matching and analyzed. Anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery (LAR: 388.6 vs. 452.8 min, p < 0.001; HAR: 300.9 vs. 393.5 min, p < 0.001; APR: 4478.5 vs. 533.5 min, p < 0.001). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay for LAR (22.3 vs. 20.0 days, p < 0.001) and APR (29.2 vs. 25.9 days, p = 0.029). Total costs for LAR were significantly lower for robot-assisted surgery (2031511.6 vs. 1955216.6 JPY, p < 0.001). The complication rates for robot-assisted surgery tended to be fewer than laparoscopic surgery for all procedures, but the differences were not significant.

Conclusions

Although the anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery, the procedure resulted in shorter hospital stay for LAR and APR, and lower costs for LAR compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted surgery can thus help to reduce costs and can be performed safely.

Prospective analysis of impact of learning curve in robotic-assisted rectal surgery in the high-volume Indian tertiary care centre

Background

Minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer has gained prominence owing to its various advantages in surgical outcomes. Due to rapid adoption of robotics in rectal surgery, we intended to assess the pace in which surgeons gain proficiency using cumulative summation (CUSUM) technique in learning curve.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective study of 262 rectal cancer cases who underwent robotic-assisted low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection (RA-LAR and RA-APR). Parameters considered for the study were console time, docking time, lymph nodal yield, total operative time and post-operative outcomes. We used Manipal technique of port placements and modified centroside docking for the procedure.

Results

The mean age of our study was 46.62 ± 5.7 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.51 ± 3.2 kg/m2. 215 (82.06%) underwent RA-LAR and 47 (17.93%) underwent RA-APR. 2.67% of cases required to open during our initial period. We had three phases of learning curve, initial phase (11th case), plateau phase (29th case) and then phases of mastery (30th case onwards). Our mean total operative time reduced from 5.5 to 3.5 h (210 ± 8.2 min), console time from 4.5 to 2.9 h (174 ± 4.5 min) and docking time from 15 to 9 ± 1 min from 30th case onwards.

Conclusion

RA surgeries for rectal cancer have got good oncological and functional outcomes in high BMI, male pelvis and low rectal cancers. Learning curve can be shortened with constant self-auditing of the surgeon and team with each surgeries performed, reviewing the steps and by improving techniques.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study

AIM

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

Standardization of rectal cancer surgery and bowel preparation in Austria : A multicenter nationwide survey by the Austrian Society of Surgical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Standardized management of colorectal cancer is crucial for achieving an optimal clinical and oncological outcome. The present nationwide survey was designed to provide data about the surgical management of rectal cancer patients. In addition, we evaluated the standard approach for bowel preparation in all centers in Austria performing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The Austrian Society of Surgical Oncology (ACO["Arbeitsgemeinschaft für chirurgische Onkonlogie"]-ASSO) conducted a multicenter questionnaire-based study comprising 64 hospitals between October 2020 and March 2021.

RESULTS

The median number of low anterior resections performed annually per department was 20 (range 0-73). The highest number was found in Vienna, with a median of 27 operations, whereas Vorarlberg was the state with the lowest median number of 13 resections per year. The laparoscopic approach was the standard technique in 46 (72%) departments, followed by the open approach in 30 (47%), transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in 10 (16%) and robotic surgery in 6 hospitals (9%). Out of 64 hospitals 51 (80%) named a standard for bowel preparation before colorectal resections. No preparation was commonly used for the right colon (33%).

CONCLUSION

Considering the low number of low anterior resections performed in each hospital per year in Austria, defined centers for rectal cancer surgery are still scarce. Many hospitals did not transfer recommended bowel preparation guidelines into clinical practice.

Uniportal video-assisted anatomical segmentectomy: an analysis of the learning curve

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to demonstrate the learning curve of anatomical segmentectomy performed by uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (U-VATS).

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective study of U-VATS segmentectomies performed by the same surgeon between September 2019 and August 2022. The learning curve was demonstrated using risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) analysis in terms of perioperative complications, which reflected surgical quality and technique proficiency. The surgical outcomes were also compared between different phases.

RESULT

The complication-based learning curve of U-VATS segmentectomy could be divided into two phases based on RA-CUSUM analysis: phase I, the initial learning phase (cases 1-50) and phase II, the proficiency phase (cases 51-141). Significantly higher complication rates (24.0 vs. 8.8%, p=0.013), longer surgical times (119.8±31.9 vs. 106.2±23.8 min, p=0.005), and more blood loss (20 [IQR, 20-30] vs. 20 [IQR, 10-20] ml, p=0.003) were observed in phase I than in phase II.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of U-VATS segmentectomy consists of two phases, and at least 50 cases were required to gain technique proficiency and achieve high-quality surgical outcomes.

The robotic learning curve for a newly appointed colorectal surgeon

Robotic colorectal surgery allows for better ergonomics, superior retraction, and fine movements in the narrow anatomy of the pelvis. Recent years have seen the uptake of robotic surgery in all pelvic surgeries specifically in low rectal malignancies. However, the learning curve of robotic surgery in this cohort is unclear as established training pathways are not formalized. This study looks at the experience and learning curve of a single laparoscopic trained surgeon in performing safe and effective resections, mainly for low rectal and anal malignancies using the da Vinci robotic system by evaluating metrics related to surgical process and patient outcome. A serial retrospective review of the robotic colorectal surgery database, in the University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW), was undertaken. All 48 consecutive cases, performed by a recently qualified colorectal surgeon, were included in our study. The surgical process was evaluated using both console and total operative time recorded in each case along with the adequacy of resections performed; in addition, patient-related outcomes including intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed to assess differences in the learning curve. Forty eight sequential recto-sigmoid resections were included in the study performed by a single surgeon. The cases were divided into four cohorts in chronological order with comparable demographics, tumour stage, location, and complexity of the operation (mean age 65, male 79%, and female 29%). The results showed that the mean console time dropped from 3 to 2.5 h, while total operative time dropped from 6 h to 5.5 h as the surgeon became more experienced; however, this was not found to be statistically significant. In addition, no significant difference in pathological staging was seen over the study period. No major intra-op and post-op complications were observed and no 30-day mortality was recorded. Moreover, after 30 cases, the learning curve developed the plateau phase, suggesting the gain of maximum proficiency of skills required for robotic colorectal resections. The learning curve in robotic rectal surgery is short and flattens early; complication rates are low during the learning curve and continue to decrease with time. This shows that with proper training and proctoring, new colorectal surgeons can be trained in a short time to perform elective colorectal pelvic resections.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Assessing the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicenter study considering procedural safety, pathological safety, and efficiency

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is scarce and of low quality. Case-mix is mostly not taken into account, and learning curves are based on operative time, while preferably clinical outcomes and literature-based limits should be used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in four Dutch centers. The primary aim was to assess the safety of the individual and institutional learning curves using a RA-CUSUM analysis based on intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome (positive circumferential margin or incomplete TME specimen). The learning curve for efficiency was assessed using a LC-CUSUM analysis for operative time. Outcomes of patients before and after the learning curve were compared.

RESULTS

In this study, seven participating surgeons performed robot-assisted total mesorectal excisions in 531 patients. Learning curves for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined literature-based limits. The LC-CUSUM for operative time showed lengths of the learning curve ranging from 12 to 35 cases. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes did not differ between patients operated during and after the learning curve.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined limits and is therefore suggested to be safe. Using operative time as a surrogate for efficiency, the learning curve is estimated to be between 12 and 35 procedures.

Seniority of the assistant surgeon and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer

The background of this study is to evaluate the impact of the assistant surgeon's in robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) on perioperative outcomes. A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent RAP for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2020 was conducted. Patient cohort was divided into three groups based on the assistant surgeon's training level: post-graduate years (PGY) 1-3 surgical residents (Group 1), PGY 4-5 surgical residents (Group 2), and board-certified general surgeons (Group 3). Overall, 175 patients were included in the study: 29 patients (17%) in Group 1, 84 (48%) in Group 2, and 62 (35%) in Group 3. The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm in all groups (p = 0.73). The median operative time was similar across all groups: 290, 291, and 281 min in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.69). In a multivariable analysis, the lack of association between assistant training level and procedure time maintained when adjusting for the year of operation (p = 0.84). Patients operated with junior residents as assistant surgeons (Group 1) had a more postoperative complications (p = 0.01) and a slightly longer hospital length of stay [7 days, interquartile range (IQR) 3], compared to those operated by assistant surgeons that were senior residents or attendings (6 IQR 2.5, and 6 IQR 2 in Groups 2 and 3, respectively; p = 0.02). Conversion rates (p = 0.12), intraoperative complications (p = 0.39), major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3; p = 0.32), 30-day readmission (p = 0.45), and mortality (p = 0.99) were similar between the groups. Robotic-assisted proctectomy performed with the assistance of a junior resident was found to be correlated with worse postoperative outcomes compared to more experienced assistants. No difference was seen in intraoperative outcomes.

Learning curve and surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program

This study analyzed learning curve and the surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program. The study results serve as a reference for future robotic colorectal surgeon who applied ERAS in clinical practice. This was a retrospective case-control study to analyze the learning curve of 141 robotic assisted colorectal surgery (RAS) by Da Vinci Xi (Xi) system and compare the surgical outcomes with 147 conventional laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in the same team. Evaluation for maturation was performed by operation time and the CUSUM plot. Patients were recruited from 1st February 2019 to 9th January 2022; follow-up was conducted at 30 days, and the final follow-up was conducted on 9th February 2022. It both took 31 cases for colon and rectal robotic surgeries to reach the maturation phase. Teamwork maturation was achieved after 60 cases. In the maturation stage, RAS required a longer operation time (mean: colon: 249.5 ± 46.5 vs. 190.3 ± 57.3 p < 0.001; rectum 314.9 ± 59.6 vs. 223.6 ± 63.5 p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, robotic surgery with ERAS program resulted in significant shorter length of hospital stay (mean: colon: 5.5 ± 4.5 vs. 10.0 ± 11.9, p < 0.001; rectum: 5.4 ± 3.5 vs. 10.1 ± 7.0, p < 0.001), lower minor complication rate (colon: 6.0% vs 20.0%, p = 0.074 ; rectum: 11.1% vs 33.3%, p = 0.102), and no significant different major complication rate (colon: 2.0% vs 6.0%, p = 0.617; rectum: 7.4% cs 7.4%, p = 1.0) to conventional LSC. Learning curve for robotic assisted colorectal surgery takes 31 cases. Robotic surgery with ERAS program brings significant faster recovery and fewer complication rate compared to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery learning curve

The learning curve in minimally invasive colorectal surgery is a constant subject of discussion in the literature. Discordant data likely reflects the varying degrees of each surgeon’s experience in colorectal, laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Several factors are necessary for a successful minimally invasive colorectal surgery training program, including: Compliance with oncological outcomes; dissection along the embryological planes; constant presence of an expert tutor; periodic discussion of the morbidity and mortality rate; and creation of a dedicated, expert team.

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.

CONCLUSION

Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Mega Meta-Analysis

Background

Laparoscopic gastrectomy and robotic gastrectomy are the most widely adopted treatment of choice for gastric cancer. To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy.

Methods

In order to find relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in the treatment of gastric cancer, numerous medical databases including PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, and China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI) were consulted, and Chinese and English studies on the efficacy and safety of RG and LG in the treatment of gastric cancer published from 2012 to 2022 were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

The meta-analysis inlcuded 48 literatures, with 20,151 gastric cancer patients, including 6,175 in the RG group and 13,976 in the LG group, respectively. Results of our meta-analysis showed that RG group had prololonged operative time (WMD = 35.72, 95% CI = 28.59–42.86, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 258.69 min ± 32.98; LG: mean ± SD = 221.85 min ± 31.18), reduced blood loss (WMD = −21.93, 95% CI = −28.94 to −14.91, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 105.22 ml ± 62.79; LG: mean ± SD = 127.34 ml ± 79.62), higher number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.99–3.63, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 35.88 ± 4.14; LG: mean ± SD = 32.73 ± 4.67), time to first postoperative food intake shortened (WMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.29 to −0.10, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 4.5 d ± 1.94; LG: mean ± SD = 4.7 d ± 1.54), and lower length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.83 to −0.24, P < 0.05) (RG: mean ± SD = 8.91 d ± 6.13; LG: mean ± SD = 9.61 d ± 7.74) in comparison to the LG group. While the other variables, for example, time to first postoperative flatus, postoperative complications, proximal and distal mar gin, R₀ resection rate, mortality rate, conversion rate, and 3-year overall survival rate were all found to be statistically similar at P > 0.05.

Conclusions

In the treatment of gastric cancer, robotic gastrectomy is a safe and effective procedure that has both short- and long-term effects. To properly evaluate the advantages of robotic surgery in gastric cancer, more randomised controlled studies with rigorous research methodologies are needed.

Evaluation of the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery using the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

There is no clear evidence on the number of cases required to master the techniques required in robot-assisted surgery for different surgical fields and techniques. The purpose of this study was to clarify the learning curve of robot-assisted rectal surgery for malignant disease by surgical process.

METHOD

The study retrospectively analyzed robot-assisted rectal surgeries performed between April 2014 and July 2020 for which the operating time per process was measurable. The following learning curves were created using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method: (1) console time required for total mesorectal excision (CUSUM tTME), (2) time from peritoneal incision to inferior mesenteric artery dissection (CUSUM tIMA), (3) time required to mobilize the descending and sigmoid colon (CUSUM tCM), and (4) time required to mobilize the rectum (CUSUM tRM). Each learning curve was classified into phases 1-3 and evaluated. A fifth learning curve was evaluated for robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection (CUSUM tLLND).

RESULTS

This study included 149 cases. Phase 1 consisted of 32 cases for CUSUM tTME, 30 for CUSUM tIMA, 21 for CUSUM tCM, and 30 for CUSUM tRM; the respective numbers were 54, 48, 45, and 61 in phase 2 and 63, 71, 83, and 58 in phase 3. There was no significant difference in the number of cases in each phase. Lateral lymph node dissection was initiated in the 76th case where robot-assisted rectal surgery was performed. For CUSUM tLLND, there were 12 cases in phase 1, 6 in phase 2, and 7 cases in phase 3.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery is the same for all surgical processes. Surgeons who already have adequate experience in robot-assisted surgery may be able to acquire stable technique in a smaller number of cases when they start to learn other techniques.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the use of binary metric-based (proficiency-based progression; PBP) performance assessments and global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS) of a robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection (RA-LAR) procedure.

Method

A prospective study of video analysis of RA-LAR procedures was carried out using the PBP metrics with binary parameters previously developed, and GEARS. Recordings were collected from five novice surgeons (≤30 RA-LAR previously performed) and seven experienced surgeons (>30 RA-LAR previously performed). Two consultant colorectal surgeons were trained to be assessors in the use of PBP binary parameters to evaluate the procedure phases, surgical steps, errors, and critical errors in male and female patients and GEARS scores. Novice and experienced surgeons were categorized and assessed using PBP metrics and GEARS; mean scores obtained were compared for statistical purpose. Also, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of these assessment tools was evaluated.

Results

Twenty unedited recordings of RA-LAR procedures were blindly assessed. Overall, using PBP metric-based assessment, a subgroup of experienced surgeons made more errors (20 versus 16, P = 0.158) and critical errors (9.2 versus 7.8, P = 0.417) than the novice group, although not significantly. However, during the critical phase of RA-LAR, experienced surgeons made significantly fewer errors than the novice group (95% CI of the difference, Lower = 0.104 – Upper = 5.155, df = 11.9, t = 2.23, p = 0.042), and a similar pattern was observed for critical errors. The PBP metric and GEARS assessment tools distinguished between the objectively assessed performance of experienced and novice colorectal surgeons performing RA-LAR (total error scores with PBP metrics, P = 0.019–0.008; GEARS scores, P = 0.029–0.025). GEARS demonstrated poor IRR (mean IRR 0.49) and weaker discrimination between groups (15–41 per cent difference). PBP binary metrics demonstrated good IRR (mean 0.94) and robust discrimination particularly for total error scores (58–64 per cent).

Conclusions

PBP binary metrics seem to be useful for metric-based training for surgeons learning RA-LAR procedures.

Local recurrence of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre cohort study evaluating the initial cases

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding local recurrence rates in the initial cases after implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is limited. This study aims to describe local recurrence rates in four large Dutch centres during their initial cases.

METHODS

Four large Dutch centres started with the implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision in respectively 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. Patients who underwent robot-assisted total mesorectal excision with curative intent in an elective setting for rectal carcinoma defined according to the sigmoid take-off were included. Overall survival, disease-free survival, systemic recurrence, and local recurrence were assessed at 3 years postoperatively. Subsequently, outcomes between the initial 10 cases, cases 11-40, and the subsequent cases per surgeon were compared using Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 531 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 32 months (IQR: 19-50]. During the initial 10 cases, overall survival was 89.5%, disease-free survival was 73.1%, and local recurrence was 4.9%. During cases 11-40, this was 87.7%, 74.1%, and 6.6% respectively. Multivariable Cox regression did not reveal differences in local recurrence between the different case groups.

CONCLUSION

Local recurrence rate during the initial phases of implantation of robot-assisted total mesorectal procedures is low. Implementation of the robot-assisted technique can safely be performed, without additional cases of local recurrence during the initial cases, if performed by surgeons experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Learning curve for single-port robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery

Purpose

We analyzed the learning curve of single-port robotic (SPR)-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Fifty-seven consecutive SPR-assisted rectal cancer surgery cases performed by the same surgeon were considered in surgical interventions for rectal cancer. Total operation time (OT), docking time (DT), and surgeon console time (SCT) measured during surgery were used to parametrize the learning curve. The parameters representing the learning curve were evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM).

Results

The mean value of total OT was 241.8 ± 91.7 minutes, the mean value of DT was 20.6 ± 19.1 minutes, and the mean value of SCT was 135.9 ± 66.7 minutes. The learning curve was divided into phase 1 (initial 16 cases), phase 2 (second 16 cases), and phase 3 (subsequent 25 cases). The peak on the CUSUM graph occurred in the 21st case. The longest OT among phases was in phase 2. Complications were most frequent in phase 2. However, complications of Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade IIIb were most frequent in phase 3 with 2 patients. The most common complications were fluid collection and urinary retention (7 patients each). Complications of CD grade IIIb required one stomal revision due to stoma obstruction and one irrigation and loop ileostomy due to anastomosis leakage.

Conclusion

Improvement in surgical performance of SPR assisted rectal cancer operation was achieved after 21 cases. The three phases identified in the cumulative sum analysis showed a significant decrease in operative time after the middle stage of the learning curve without an increase in the complication rate.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Simple Summary

Surgery remains a mainstay of combined modality treatment at patients with rectal cancer; however, there is a growing interest in using laparoscopic techniques (LG); including robotic-assisted techniques (RG). Therefore, we have prepared a meta-analysis of the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. The results indicate a number of advantages of RG in terms of both safety and efficacy. Operative time in the RG group was shorter and associated with a statistically significantly lower conversion of the procedure to open surgery. RG technique provided a shorter duration of hospital stay and lowered urinary risk retention. No differences were found between these techniques regarding TNM stage; N stage or lymph nodes harvested. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% in RG vs. 98.8% for LG.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Learning curve for robotic bedside assistance for rectal cancer: application of the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

This investigation assesses the learning curve for dedicated bedside assistance at a facility that recently adopted robot-assisted rectal resection.

METHODS

Data from patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic rectal resections from September 2019 through April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Before starting robotic surgery, we set the rule that a console surgeon would not enter the sterile field and all of those maneuvers would be left to a dedicated physician. Docking time was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to evaluate the learning curve. Different phases in the learning curve were identified according to CUSUM plot configuration. A comparison was made of phases 1 and 2 combined, and phase 3.

RESULT

The procedures were performed in 30 patients. Median docking time, console time was 13 min. A total of nine patients had histories of abdominal surgery. CUSUM analysis of docking time demonstrated 3 phases. Each docking time was longer in Phase 1 (the first 3 cases) than the average docking time over the all cases. The docking time in Phase 2 (the 9 middle cases) approximated the average time over the all cases. Phase 3 (the remaining 18 cases) showed further improvement of the docking procedure and time was reduced. A comparison of Phases 1 and 2 combined, and Phase 3, revealed that Phase 3 had a significantly higher rate of history of abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Docking manipulation proficiency was achieved in approximately 10 cases without the influence of surgical difficulty.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Resection of low rectal adenocarcinoma can be challenging in the narrow pelvis of male patients. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) appears to offer technical advantages for distal rectal tumours, and robotic-assisted transabdominal TME (rTME) was introduced in effort to improve operative precision and ergonomics. However, no study has comprehensively compared these approaches. The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare postoperative short-term outcomes in rTME and TaTME.

METHODS

A systematic online search (1974-July 2020) of MEDLINE, Embase, web of science and google scholar was conducted for trials, prospective or retrospective studies involving rTME, or TaTME for rectal cancer. Outcome variables included: hospital stay; operation duration, blood loss; resection margins; proportion of histologically complete resected specimens; lymph nodes; overall complications; anastomotic leak, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-two articles met the inclusion criteria, including 37 studies (3835 patients) assessing rTME resection, 23 studies (1326 patients) involving TaTME and 2 comparing both (165 patients). Operating time was longer in rTME (309.2 min, 95% CI 285.5-332.8) than in TaTME studies (256.2 min, 95% CI 231.5-280.9) (p = 0.002). rTME resected specimens had a larger distal resection margin (2.62 cm, 95% CI 2.35-2.88) than in TaTME studies (2.10 cm, 95% CI 1.83-2.36) (p = 0.007). Other outcome variables did not significantly differ between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

rTME provides similar pathological and short-term outcomes to TaTME and both are reasonable surgical approaches for patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer. To definitively answer the question of the optimal TME technique, we suggest a prospective trial comparing both techniques assessing long-term survival as a primary outcome.

Options for Low Rectal Cancer: Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision

Low rectal cancers (LRCs) may offer a difficult technical challenge even to experienced colorectal surgeons. Although laparoscopic surgery offers a superior exposure of the pelvis when compared with open approach, its role in rectal cancer surgery has been controversial. Robotic platforms are well suited for difficult pelvic surgery due to its three-dimensional visualization, degree of articulation of instruments, precise movements, and better ergonomics. The robot may be suitable especially in the anatomically narrow pelvis such as in male and obese patients. Meticulous dissection in critical steps, such as splenic flexure takedown, nerve-sparing mesorectal excision, and distal margin clearance, are potential technical advantages. In addition, robotic rectal resections are associated with lower conversion rates to open surgery, less blood loss, and shorter learning curve with similar short-term quality of life outcomes, similar rates of postoperative complications, and equivalent short-term surrogate outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery approach, if used correctly, can enhance the skills and the capabilities of the well-trained surgeon during minimally invasive procedures for LRC.

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups.

RESULTS

There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90).

CONCLUSION

Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy has been used for treating gastric cancer since 2002. This meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic distal subtotal gastrectomy (RDG) or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy (LDG) in patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted searches in domestic and foreign databases, and collected literature in Chinese and English on the efficacy of RDG and LDG for gastric cancer that have been published since the inception of the database. RevMan 5.4.1 was used for meta-analysis and drawing and Stata14.0 was used for publication bias analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3293 patients in 15 studies were included, including 1193 patients in the RDG group and 2100 patients in the LDG groups respectively. The meta-analysis showed that intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower and the number of resected lymph nodes was higher in the RDG group compared to that in the LDG group. In addition, the times to first postoperative food intake and postoperative hospital stay were shortened, and there was a longer length of distal resection margin and prolonged duration of operation. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups with respect to the first postoperative anal exhaust time, length of proximal resection margin, total postoperative complication rate, postoperative anastomotic leakage rate, incidence of postoperative gastric emptying disorder, pancreatic fistula rate, recurrence rate, and mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

RDG is a safe and feasible treatment option for gastric cancer, and it is non-inferior or even superior to LDG with respect to therapeutic efficacy and radical treatment.

Initial Experience in Rectal Cancer Surgery for the Next Generation of Robotic Surgeons Trained in a Dual Console System

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is used worldwide, with an increasing incidence of robotic surgeons. Therefore, the most appropriate educational system for next-generation robotic surgeons should be urgently established.

METHODS

We analyzed 39 patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery performed by a next-generation surgeon with limited experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. The dual console system was used in the initial 15 cases, and we assessed short-term outcomes and the learning curve on operative time using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups: 15 cases in the early phase, and 24 cases in the late phase. The operative time and surgeon console time were significantly shorter in the late phase than the early phase (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were more frequently observed in the early phase (P = 0.049); however, the estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were not significantly different. In the initial 15 cases that using the dual console, the average operative time changing to the expert surgeon was 82 minutes in the first 5 cases, 19 minutes on average in the next 5 cases, and no change occurred in the last 5 cases. The learning curve peaked after 14 cases, plateaued from case number 15 to 23, and decreased in a linear fashion until the final case.

CONCLUSION

Education of a next generation surgeon using a dual console system for robotic rectal cancer surgery was performed safely.

Colorectal cancer surgery: by Cambridge Medical Robotics Versius Surgical Robot System-a single-institution study. Our experience

With the previous experiences in performing laparoscopic for over a period of 15 years and da Vinci colorectal surgeries from 2010 to 2013, we started operating using the Cambridge Medical Robotics (CMR) Versius Surgical Robot System. The aim of the study is a prospective analysis and evaluation of short-term results of consecutive patients to study the technical feasibility and oncological outcome of robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) and ultralow anterior resection (ULAR), using the CMR Versius Surgical Robot System. This study was conducted at single minimal access surgery institute. 31 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent robot-assisted LAR and ULAR between August 2019 and March 2020. Patient characteristics, perioperative parameters and complications were evaluated. Surgical and pathological outcomes such as quality of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME), free circumferential resection margins and number of lymph nodes dissected were also evaluated. Of 31 patients, 23 were men and 8 women, with mean age of 55.6 years. The mean robotic operative time was 51 min and the mean blood loss was 55 ml. The mean robot docking and undocking time was 17 min and 5 min, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 7 days. The longitudinal and circumferential resection margins were negative in all patients. Histopathological reports of 27 among 31 patients showed complete TME. Splenic flexure of colon mobilization was done laparoscopically. We feel that Versius robot has the qualities in terms of dexterity, vision and intuitive movements, and to translate this technical ability into oncological safety.

Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery. How to Reach Expertise? A Single Surgeon-Experience

The complexity associated with laparoscopic colorectal surgery requires several skills to overcome the technical difficulties related to this procedure. To overcome the technical challenges of laparoscopic surgery, a robotic approach has been introduced. Our study reports the surgical outcomes obtained by the transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in colorectal cancer surgery to establish in which type of approach the proficiency is easier to reach. Data about the first consecutive 15 laparoscopic and the first 15 consecutive robotic cases are extracted, adopting as a comparator of proficiency the last 15 laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer. The variables studied are operative time, number of harvested nodes, conversion rate, postoperative complications, recovery outcomes. Our analysis includes 15 patients per group. Our results show that operative time is significantly longer in the first 15 laparoscopic cases (p = 0.001). A significantly lower number of harvested nodes was retrieved in the first 15 laparoscopic cases (p = 0.003). Clavien Dindo I complication rate was higher in the first laparoscopic group, but without a significant difference among the three groups (p = 0.09). Our results show that the surgeon needed no apparent learning curve to reach their laparoscopic standards. However, further multicentric prospective studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision (RTaTME): State of the Art

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical management of rectal cancer. The transanal approach to the mesorectum was introduced to overcome the technical difficulties related to the distal rectal dissection. Since its inception, interest in transanal mesorectal excision has grown exponentially and it appears that the benefits are maximal in patients with mid-low rectal cancer where anatomical and pathological features represent the greatest challenges. Current evidence demonstrates that this approach is safe and feasible, with oncological and functional outcome comparable to conventional approaches, but with specific complications related to the technique. Robotics might potentially simplify the technical steps of distal rectal dissection, with a shorter learning curve compared to the laparoscopic transanal approach, but with higher costs. The objective of this review is to critically analyze the available literature concerning robotic transanal TME in order to define its role in the management of rectal cancer and to depict future perspectives in this field of research.

Learning curve of robotic distal and total gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the learning curve of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) and robotic total gastrectomy (RTG) for gastric cancer.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by five surgeons between March 2010 and August 2019 at two high-volume institutions were collected. The learning curve was determined based on the analyses of operation time and postoperative complications within 30 days. Cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted-CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) were applied to identify the turning points (TPs).

RESULTS

A total of 899 consecutive patients were included. The mean number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for operation time of RDG and RTG were 22 and 20, respectively. The number of patients needed to overcome the learning curve for postoperative complications after RDG and RTG were 23 and 18, respectively. The surgical outcomes in the post-TP group were better than in the pre-TP group and improved as surgeons' experience increased. Also, increased case numbers in RDG promoted the RTG learning process.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated a substantial influence of surgical cumulative volume on improved surgical outcomes in robotic gastrectomy. Increased experience in RDG may help surgeons to achieve proficiency faster in RTG.

Comprehensive Learning Curve of Robotic Surgery: Discovery From a Multicenter Prospective Trial of Robotic Gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the complication-based learning curve and identify learning-associated complications of robotic gastrectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

With the increased popularity of robotic surgery, a sound understanding of the learning curve in the surgical outcome of robotic surgery has taken on great importance. However, a multicenter prospective study analyzing learning-associated morbidity has never been conducted in robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Data on 502 robotic gastrectomy cases were prospectively collected from 5 surgeons. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis was applied to visualize the learning curve of robotic gastrectomy on operation time and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-five cases, on average, were needed to overcome complications and operation time-learning curve sufficiently to gain proficiency in 3 surgeons. An additional 23 cases were needed to cross the transitional phase to progress from proficiency to mastery. The moderate complication rate (CD ≥ grade II) was 20% in phase 1 (cases 1-25), 10% in phase 2 (cases 26-65), 26.1% in phase 3 (cases 66-88), and 6.4% in phase 4 (cases 89-125) (P < 0.001). Among diverse complications, CD ≥ grade II intra-abdominal bleeding (P < 0.001) and abdominal pain (P = 0.01) were identified as major learning-associated morbidities of robotic gastrectomy. Previous experience on laparoscopic surgery and mode of training influenced progression in the learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study suggesting that technical immaturity substantially affects the surgical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy and that robotic gastrectomy is a complex procedure with a significant learning curve that has implications for physician training and credentialing.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

It remains controversial whether the advantages of robotic-assisted surgery are beneficial for rectal cancer (RC). The study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) compared with those of conventional laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 539 consecutive patients with stage I-IV RC who had undergone elective surgery between January 2010 and December 2020, using propensity score-matched analysis. After propensity score matching, we enrolled 200 patients (n = 100 in each groups). Before matching, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age (p = 0.04) and body mass index (p < 0.01). After matching, clinicopathologic outcomes were similar between the groups, but estimated operative time was longer and postoperative lymphorrhea was more frequent in the RARS group. Estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to laparotomy, and incidence of anastomotic leakage or reoperation were significantly lower in the RARS group. No surgical mortality was observed in either group. No significant differences were observed in terms of positive resection margins or number of lymph nodes harvested. RARS was safe and technically feasible, and achieved acceptable short-term outcomes. The robotic technique showed some advantages in RC surgery that require validation in further studies.

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair Outcomes: Operative Time and Cost Analysis

Background

Robotic inguinal hernia repair is the latest iteration of minimally invasive herniorrhaphy. Previous studies have shown expedited learning curves compared to traditional laparoscopy, which may be offset by higher cost and longer operative time. We sought to compare operative time and direct cost across the evolving surgical practice of 10 surgeons in our healthcare system.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of all transabdominal preperitoneal robotic inguinal hernia repairs performed by 10 general surgeons from July 2015 to September 2018. Patients requiring conversion to an open procedure or undergoing simultaneous procedures were excluded. The data was divided to compare each surgeon's initial 20 cases to their subsequent cases. Direct operative cost was calculated based on the sum of supplies used intra-operatively. Multivariate analysis, using a generalized estimating equation, was adjusted for laterality and resident involvement to evaluate outcomes.

Results

Robotic inguinal hernia repairs were divided into two groups: early experience (n = 167) and late experience (n = 262). The late experience had a shorter mean operative time by 17.6 min (confidence interval: 4.06 - 31.13, p = 0.011), a lower mean direct operative cost by $538.17 (confidence interval: 307.14 - 769.20, p < 0.0001), and fewer postoperative complications (p = 0.030) on multivariate analysis. Thirty-day readmission rates were similar between both groups.

Conclusion

Increasing surgeon experience with robotic inguinal hernia repair is associated with a predictable reduction in operative time, complication rates, and direct operative cost per case. Thirty-day readmission rates are not affected by the learning curve.

Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase

We aimed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introduction phase. This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent initial robotic surgery (n = 36) vs. patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 95) for rectal cancer. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of patients using a propensity score analysis and clarified short-term outcomes, urinary function, and sexual function at the time of robotic surgery introduction. The mean surgical duration was longer in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (288.4 vs. 245.2 min, respectively; p = 0.051). With lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, no significant difference was observed in surgical duration (508.0 min for robot-assisted laparoscopy vs. 480.4 min for conventional laparoscopy; p = 0.595). The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (15 days vs. 13.0 days, respectively; p = 0.026). Conversion to open surgery was not necessary in either group. The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group. Moderate-to-severe symptoms were more frequently observed in the conventional laparoscopy group compared with the robot-assisted laparoscopy group (p = 0.051). Robotic surgery is safe and could improve functional disorder after rectal cancer surgery in the introduction phase. This may depend on the surgeon’s experience in performing robotic surgery and strictly confined criteria in Japan.

How long is the tail end of the learning curve? Results from 1000 consecutive endoscopic endonasal skull base cases following the initial 200 cases

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs) to the skull base have evolved over the last 20 years to become an essential component of a comprehensive skull base practice. Many case series show a learning curve from the earliest cases, in which the authors were inexperienced or were not using advanced closure techniques. It is generally accepted that once this learning curve is achieved, a plateau is reached with little incremental improvement. Cases performed during the early steep learning curve were eliminated to examine whether the continued improvement exists over the "tail end" of the curve.

METHODS

A prospectively acquired database of all EEA cases performed by the senior authors at Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital was reviewed. The first 200 cases were eliminated and the next 1000 consecutive cases were examined to avoid the bias created by the early learning curve.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 cases, the most common pathologies included pituitary adenoma (51%), meningoencephalocele or CSF leak repair (8.6%), meningioma (8.4%), craniopharyngioma (7.3%), basilar invagination (3.1%), Rathke's cleft cyst (2.8%), and chordoma (2.4%). Use of lumbar drains decreased from the first half to the second half of our series (p <0.05) as did the authors' use of fat alone (p <0.005) or gasket alone (p <0.005) for dural closure, while the use of a nasoseptal flap increased (p <0.005). Although mean tumor diameter was constant (on average), gross-total resection (GTR) increased from 60% in the first half to 73% in the second half (p <0.005). GTR increased for all pathologies but most significantly for chordoma (56% vs 100%, p <0.05), craniopharyngioma (47% vs 0.71%, p <0.05) and pituitary adenoma (67% vs 75%, p <0.05). Hormonal cure for secreting adenomas also increased from 83% in the first half to 89% in the second half (p <0.05). The rate of any complication was unchanged at 6.4% in the first half and 6.2% in the latter half of cases, and vascular injury occurred in only 0.6% of cases. Postoperative CSF leak occurred in 2% of cases and was unchanged between the first and second half of the series.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that contrary to popular belief, the surgical learning curve does not plateau but can continue for several years depending on the complexity of the endpoints considered. These findings may have implications for clinical trial design, surgical education, and patient safety measures.

Surgical Complexity and Outcome During the Implementation Phase of a Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Robotic surgery holds particular promise for complex oncologic colorectal resections, as it can overcome many limitations of the laparoscopic approach. However, similar to the situation in laparoscopic surgery, appropriate case selection (simple vs. complex) with respect to the actual robotic expertise of the team may be a critical determinant of outcome. The present study aimed to analyze the clinical outcome after robotic colorectal surgery over time based on the complexity of the surgical procedure.

Methods

All robotic colorectal resections (n = 85) performed at the Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, between the beginning of the program in April 2015 until December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. To compare surgical outcome over time, the cohort was divided into 2 time periods based on case sequence (period 1: patients 1–43, period 2: patients 44–85). Cases were assigned a complexity level (I-IV) according to the type of resection, severity of disease, sex and body mass index (BMI). Postoperative complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results

In total, 47 rectal resections (55.3%), 22 partial colectomies (25.8%), 14 abdomino-perineal resections (16.5%) and 2 proctocolectomies (2.4%) were performed. Of these, 69.4% (n = 59) were oncologic cases. The overall rate of major complications (Clavien Dindo III-V) was 16.5%. Complex cases (complexity levels III and IV) were more often followed by major complications than cases with a low to medium complexity level (I and II; 25.0 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, the rate of major complications decreased over time from 25.6% (period 1) to 7.1% (period 2, p = 0.038). Of note, the drop in major complications was associated with a learning effect, which was particularly pronounced in complex cases as well as a reduction of case complexity from 67.5% to 45.2% in the second period (p = 0.039).

Conclusions

The risk of major complications after robotic colorectal surgery increases significantly with escalating case complexity (levels III and IV), particularly during the initial phase of a new colorectal robotic surgery program. Before robotic proficiency has been achieved, it is therefore advisable to limit robotic colorectal resection to cases with complexity levels I and II in order to keep major complication rates at a minimum.

The robotic colorectal experience: an outcomes and learning curve analysis of 502 patients

AIM

This study aimed to present our experience with robotic colorectal surgery since its establishment at our institution in 2009. By examining the outcomes of over 500 patients, our experience provides a basis for assessing the introduction of a robotic platform in a colorectal practice. Specific measures investigated include intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for all operations using the robotic platform. In addition, for our most commonly performed operations we wished to analyse the learning curve to improve operative proficiency. This is the largest single-surgeon robotic database analysed to date.

METHOD

A prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery by a single surgeon at the George Washington University Hospital was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Additionally, an operating time learning curve analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 502 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery between October 2009 and December 2018. The most common indications for surgery were diverticulitis (22.9%), colon adenocarcinoma (22.1%) and rectal adenocarcinoma (19.5%). The most common operations were anterior/low anterior resection (33.9%), right hemicolectomy/ileocaecectomy (24.9%) and left hemicolectomy/sigmoidectomy (21.9%). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 4.8%. The most common postoperative complications were wound infection (5.0%), anastomotic leakage (4.0%) and abscess formation (2.8%). The operating time learning curve plateaued at 55-65 cases for anterior and low anterior resection and 35-45 cases for left hemicolectomy and sigmoidectomy. A clear learning curve was not seen in right hemicolectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery can be performed in a diverse colorectal practice with low rates of conversion and postoperative complications. Plateau performance was achieved after 65 anterior/low anterior resections and 45 left and sigmoid colectomies.

Establishing the learning curve for elbow arthroscopy: surgeon and trainee perspectives on number of cases needed and optimal methods for acquiring skill

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopy has increased in frequency as its indications have widened. Despite this growth, a learning curve has not yet been defined.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that there would be significant differences in perspective between trainees and established surgeons for the number of cases needed to reach each skill level and what they felt are the most valuable training tools.

METHODS

Orthopedic attending physicians and trainees were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing participant demographics, case volumes required to reach defined skill levels (novice, safe, competent, proficient, and expert), and the efficacy of various learning methodologies for elbow arthroscopy. The value of educational methods was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all valuable; 5 = extremely valuable).

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 323 total participants, of whom 224 (69.3%) were attending surgeons and 99 (30.7%) were trainees (resident or fellow physicians). According to the attending physicians, the mean numbers of cases needed to reach each skill level were 19 to be safe, 42 to be competent, 93 to be proficient, and 230 to be expert. These case numbers were not significantly different from the perspectives of trainees. Across the respondents, there were no significant differences in the number of cases needed to reach each level of skill based on the respondents' level of training, years of experience, type of fellowship, or self-reported skill level.Although both groups highly valued live surgery (4.7 of 5) and cadaveric practice (4.6 of 5) for acquiring skill, attendings placed higher value on reading (4.0 vs. 3.3, P < .001), videos/live demos (4.2 vs. 3.6, P < .001), and formal courses (4.5 vs. 4.1, P < .001) than trainees. Both groups place relatively low value on surgical simulators (2.8-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable agreement among attending surgeons and trainees in terms of the number of cases needed to attain various skill levels of elbow arthroscopy, which was consistent regardless of fellowship background, self-reported skill level, career length, and elbow arthroscopy case volume. However, there was some disagreement between attending surgeons and trainees over the most valuable methods for acquiring surgical skill with trainees placing less value on textbooks, surgical videos, and formal courses compared with attending surgeons. An understanding of the elbow arthroscopy learning curve will help trainees and their training programs establish case volume targets before safe, independent practice. Future studies should aim to clinically validate this learning curve.

Impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has advantages in terms of the ergonomic design and expectations of shortening the learning curve, which may reduce the number of patients with adverse outcomes during a surgeon's learning period. We investigated the differences in the learning curves of robotic surgery and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer among surgeons with differences in their experiences of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic surgery for colorectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into five groups by surgeons, and their clinical outcomes were analyzed. The learning curve of each surgeon with different volumes of laparoscopic experience was analyzed using the cumulative sum technique (CUSUM) for operation times, surgical failure (open conversion or anastomosis-related complications), and local failure (positive resection margins or local recurrence within 1 year).

RESULTS

A total of 662 patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer were included in the analysis. Number of laparoscopic LAR cases performed by surgeon A, B, C, D, and E prior to their first case of robotic surgery were 403, 40, 15, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Based on CUSUM for operation time, surgeon A, B, C, D, and E's learning curve periods were 110, 39, 114, 55, and 23 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the surgical and oncological outcomes after robotic LAR among the surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the limited impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery, which was greater than previously reported curves.

The slope of the learning curve in 600 consecutive endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgeries

BACKGROUND

Endonasal endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for pituitary adenoma has become a mainstay of treatment over the last two decades and it is generally accepted that once this learning curve is achieved, a plateau is reached with little incremental improvement.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the slope of the learning curve over a long period of time for a variety of outcomes measures.

METHODS

We examined outcomes and complications in a consecutive series of 600 EETS for pituitary adenoma grouped into quartiles based on date of surgery.

RESULTS

GTR significantly increased across quartiles from 55 to 79% in the last quartile (p < 0.005). The rate of intraoperative CSF leak significantly decreased from 60% in the first quartile to 33% in the last quartile and the rate of lumbar drain placement from 28% in the first quartile to 6% in the last quartile (p < 0.005). Hormonal remission for secreting adenomas increased from 68% in the first quartile to 90% in the last quartile (p < 0.05). The rate of post-operative CSF leak trended lower (3% in first quartile to 0.7% in last two quartiles). The greatest improvement in outcome occurred between the first and second quartiles (19.9%), but persistent improvement occurred between the second and third (6.7%) and third and fourth quartiles (8.0%).

CONCLUSION

Although the slope of the learning curve is steeper earlier in a surgeon's experience, the slope does not plateau and continues to increase even over more than a decade.

Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery in Colorectal Neoplasms During the Initial Learning Curve

Aim: To analyze the learning curve (LC) for robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for colorectal neoplasms and evaluate safety and feasibility during the initial LC.

Method: Patients who consecutively underwent robotic NOSES performed by two surgeons between March 2016 and October 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. The operation time was evaluated using the cumulative sum method to analyze the LC. The clinicopathological data before and after the completion of LC were extracted and compared to evaluate safety and feasibility.

Results: In total, 99 and 66 cases were scheduled for robotic NOSES by Prof. Yao and Prof. Li, respectively. The peak points of LC were observed at the 42nd and 15th cases of Yao and Li, respectively, then operation time began to decrease. Only the operation time for Yao before the completion of LC (213.3 ± 67.0 min) was longer than that after the completion of LC (143.8 ± 33.3 min). For Yao nor for Li, other indices, such as postoperative hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to laparotomy, incidence of anastomotic leakage, reoperation rate, and 90-day mortality rate lacked significant statistical differences(P > 0.05). In terms of feasibility, the number of lymph nodes harvested, positive resection margin rate, and total cost before and after the completion of LC had no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: The cases before the completion of LC for robotic NOSES in colorectal neoplasms varied from 15 cases to 42 cases. Robotic NOSES is safe and feasible during the initial LC.