BACKGROUND: Single-incision right colectomy has emerged as a safe and feasible alternative to standard laparoscopic resection. As with any new surgical approach, definition of the number of procedures required to optimize the technique is an important goal. Data on this learning curve for single-incision right colectomy are lacking; therefore, we report the outcomes of consecutive single-incision right colectomies to identify the procedural learning curve. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive single-incision right colectomies performed by a single surgeon from May 2010 to May 2013. Patients were evaluated in groups of ten to minimize individual patient variability and selection bias. Demographics and peri-operative outcomes among groups were evaluated using ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis. Statistical improvement was assessed between groups using Student T tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Seventy consecutive single-incision right colectomies were performed during the study period. There were no differences in patient demographics over the course of the experiences, suggesting that the selection bias did not influence the outcomes. There was a statistical improvement in operative time after the first 10 cases (103 vs. 130 min, p = 0.01). A second statistical improvement in operative time occurred after 40 cases (97 vs. 114 min, p = 0.03). There was no statistical improvement in estimated blood loss, lymph node harvest, conversion rate, length of stay, or post-operative morbidity throughout the experience. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of our large series of consecutive cases indicates that for a surgeon trained in advanced laparoscopic techniques and given adequate case volume, the outcomes from the procedure are quickly optimized with a minimal learning curve. Operative time is optimized following 40 procedures. Identification of the learning curve is critical for surgeons wishing to implement a single-incision approach and to ensure that the outcomes are optimized prior to thorough comparison with standard laparoscopic or open approaches.
BACKGROUND: Single-incision right colectomy has emerged as a safe and feasible alternative to standard laparoscopic resection. As with any new surgical approach, definition of the number of procedures required to optimize the technique is an important goal. Data on this learning curve for single-incision right colectomy are lacking; therefore, we report the outcomes of consecutive single-incision right colectomies to identify the procedural learning curve. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive single-incision right colectomies performed by a single surgeon from May 2010 to May 2013. Patients were evaluated in groups of ten to minimize individual patient variability and selection bias. Demographics and peri-operative outcomes among groups were evaluated using ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis. Statistical improvement was assessed between groups using Student T tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Seventy consecutive single-incision right colectomies were performed during the study period. There were no differences in patient demographics over the course of the experiences, suggesting that the selection bias did not influence the outcomes. There was a statistical improvement in operative time after the first 10 cases (103 vs. 130 min, p = 0.01). A second statistical improvement in operative time occurred after 40 cases (97 vs. 114 min, p = 0.03). There was no statistical improvement in estimated blood loss, lymph node harvest, conversion rate, length of stay, or post-operative morbidity throughout the experience. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of our large series of consecutive cases indicates that for a surgeon trained in advanced laparoscopic techniques and given adequate case volume, the outcomes from the procedure are quickly optimized with a minimal learning curve. Operative time is optimized following 40 procedures. Identification of the learning curve is critical for surgeons wishing to implement a single-incision approach and to ensure that the outcomes are optimized prior to thorough comparison with standard laparoscopic or open approaches.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Justin T Huntington; Laura A Boomer; Victoria K Pepper; Karen A Diefenbach; Jennifer L Dotson; Benedict C Nwomeh Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Chang Woo Kim; Yun Dae Han; Ha Yan Kim; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 1.889