Literature DB >> 19480272

The first 100 da Vinci hysterectomies: an analysis of the learning curve for a single surgeon.

Maria C Bell1, Jenny L Torgerson, Usha Kreaden.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic gynecologic procedures were FDA-approved in March 2005. Published average times for robotic hysterectomies vary from 192 minutes to 242 minutes and one report indicated operative times ranging from 4.5 to ten hours. Many critics cite learning curves and increased operative times as a deterrent to performing robotic hysterectomies.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of surgical times (learning curve) for the first 100 consecutive extrafascial hysterectomies with or without salpingo-oophorectomy for a single surgeon. Operating times were recorded by operating room nursing staff for each case. The times reported are from "skin to skin," which is defined as from when the surgeon started to place anything vaginally until the last suture was placed to close the trocar sites. We report average times for hysterectomy per 20 cases.
RESULTS: The average time for hysterectomies was as follows: First 20 cases--124 minutes, second 20 cases--94 minutes, third 20 cases--85 minutes, fourth 20 cases--88 minutes, fifth 20 cases--81 minutes. Age, body mass index and uterine weights were comparable between groups. Complications were highest in the first 20 at 15 percent, compared with 5 percent for the remaining groups, but this did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for da Vinci hysterectomies is steep, with the maximum improvement in surgical times in the first 20 cases. Minimal improvement was demonstrated after this.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19480272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  S D Med        ISSN: 0038-3317


  11 in total

Review 1.  Uterine fibroids and current clinical challenges.

Authors:  Salama S Salama; Gökhan S Kılıç
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2013-03-01

2.  Perioperative complications of robotic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Mallika Anand; Joshua L Woelk; Amy L Weaver; Emanuel C Trabuco; Christopher J Klingele; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-04-09       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  The Minailo knot: a time-saving and cost-saving technique.

Authors:  John V Brown; Erin J Tinnerman-Minailo; Mark A Rettenmaier; John P Micha; Bram H Goldstein
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-01-12

4.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

Authors:  Theresa A Lawrie; Hongqian Liu; DongHao Lu; Therese Dowswell; Huan Song; Lei Wang; Gang Shi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-15

5.  Learning curve analysis of multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Yeon Jee Lee; Dong-Eun Lee; Hye Rim Oh; Hyeong In Ha; Myong Cheol Lim
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 2.493

6.  Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Rosa M Jiménez-Rodríguez; José Manuel Díaz-Pavón; Fernando de la Portilla de Juan; Emilio Prendes-Sillero; Hisnard Cadet Dussort; Javier Padillo
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Malak B Bokhari; Chirag B Patel; Diego I Ramos-Valadez; Madhu Ragupathi; Eric M Haas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-24       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Lori Weinberg; Sanjay Rao; Pedro F Escobar
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2011-11-28

9.  Robotic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Have We Learned from a Decade?

Authors:  Marie Carbonnel; Gaby N Moawad; Mia Maria Tarazi; Aurelie Revaux; Titouan Kennel; Angéline Favre-Inhofer; Jean Marc Ayoubi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2021 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

10.  Learning curve analysis of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: initial experience at a single institution.

Authors:  Ga Won Yim; Sang Wun Kim; Eun Ji Nam; Sunghoon Kim; Young Tae Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 4.401

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.