Literature DB >> 25990666

The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Niccolò Napoli1, Emanuele F Kauffmann, Vittorio Grazio Perrone, Mario Miccoli, Stefania Brozzetti, Ugo Boggi.   

Abstract

No data are available on the learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RADP). The learning curve in RADP was assessed in 55 consecutive patients using the cumulative sum method, based on operative time. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and analyzed retrospectively considering all events occurring within 90 days of surgery. No operation was converted to laparoscopic or open surgery and no patient died. Post-operative complications occurred in 34 patients (61.8%), being of Clavien-Dindo grade I-II in 32 patients (58.1%), including pancreatic fistula in 29 patients (52.7%). No grade C pancreatic fistula occurred. Four patients received blood transfusions (7.2%), three were readmitted (5.4%) and one required repeat surgery (1.8%). Based on the reduction of operative times (421.1 ± 20.5 vs 248.9 ± 9.3 min; p < 0.0001), completion of the learning curve was achieved after ten operations. Operative time of the first 10 operations was associated with a positive slope (0.47 + 1.78* case number; R (2) 0.97; p < 0.0001*), while that of the following 45 procedures showed a negative slope (23.52 - 0.39* case number; R (2) 0.97; p < 0.0001*). After completion of the learning curve, more patients had a malignant histology (0 vs 35.6%; p = 0.002), accounting for both higher lymph node yields (11.1 ± 12.2 vs 20.9 ± 18.5) (p = 0.04) and lower rate of spleen preservation (90 vs 55.6%) (p = 0.04). RADP was safely feasible in selected patients and the learning curve was completed after ten operations. Improvement in clinical outcome was not demonstrated, probably because of the limited occurrence of outcome comparators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25990666     DOI: 10.1007/s13304-015-0299-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Updates Surg        ISSN: 2038-131X


  25 in total

1.  Assessment of the learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  William E Fisher; Sally E Hodges; Meng-Fen Wu; Susan G Hilsenbeck; F Charles Brunicardi
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 2.  Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Raghunandan Venkat; Barish H Edil; Richard D Schulick; Anne O Lidor; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery.

Authors:  Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Paul J Speicher; Daniel P Nussbaum; Rebekah R White; Sabino Zani; Paul J Mosca; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Theodore N Pappas; Douglas S Tyler; Alexander Perez
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies.

Authors:  Asri C Jusoh; Basil J Ammori
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Giovanni Butturini; Isacco Damoli; Lorenzo Crepaz; Giuseppe Malleo; Giovanni Marchegiani; Despoina Daskalaki; Alessandro Esposito; Sara Cingarlini; Roberto Salvia; Claudio Bassi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  A multicenter survey on distal pancreatectomy in Italy: results of minimally invasive technique and variability of perioperative pathways.

Authors:  G Balzano; M Bissolati; U Boggi; C Bassi; A Zerbi; M Falconi
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2014-11-28

8.  Learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a high-volume hospital.

Authors:  Marco Braga; Cristina Ridolfi; Gianpaolo Balzano; Renato Castoldi; Nicolò Pecorelli; Valerio Di Carlo
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2012-07-05

9.  Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery.

Authors:  W S Melvin; B J Needleman; K R Krause; C Schneider; R K Wolf; R E Michler; E C Ellison
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-09-23       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Authors:  U Boggi; S Signori; N De Lio; V G Perrone; F Vistoli; M Belluomini; C Cappelli; G Amorese; F Mosca
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery for benign and malignant disease.

Authors:  Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 2.  An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery.

Authors:  Luise I M Pernar; Faith C Robertson; Ali Tavakkoli; Eric G Sheu; David C Brooks; Douglas S Smink
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Development of Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: an Evidence-Based Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Approaches.

Authors:  G Paul Wright; Amer H Zureikat
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Robotic-Assisted Pancreatic Resections.

Authors:  Ugo Boggi; Niccolò Napoli; Francesca Costa; Emanuele F Kauffmann; Francesca Menonna; Sara Iacopi; Fabio Vistoli; Gabriella Amorese
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Rong Liu; Go Wakabayashi; Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Allan Tsung; Kehu Yang; Brian K P Goh; Charing Ching-Ning Chong; Chang Moo Kang; Chenghong Peng; Eli Kakiashvili; Ho-Seong Han; Hong-Jin Kim; Jin He; Jae Hoon Lee; Kyoichi Takaori; Marco Vito Marino; Shen-Nien Wang; Tiankang Guo; Thilo Hackert; Ting-Shuo Huang; Yiengpruksawan Anusak; Yuman Fong; Yuichi Nagakawa; Yi-Ming Shyr; Yao-Ming Wu; Yupei Zhao
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 7.293

Review 6.  Towards standardized robotic surgery in gastrointestinal oncology.

Authors:  Lawrence M Knab; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 3.445

7.  Resection or repair of large peripancreatic arteries during robotic pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Emanuele F Kauffmann; Niccolò Napoli; Concetta Cacace; Francesca Menonna; Fabio Vistoli; Gabriella Amorese; Ugo Boggi
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2020-02-18

8.  Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Camille L Stewart; Philip H G Ituarte; Kurt A Melstrom; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Yanghee Woo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  What is the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy?

Authors:  Kimberly M Brown; David A Geller
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Overcoming the Arduous Transition for Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary Cases: A Multi-Procedure Learning Curve Study Utilizing CUSUM Analysis.

Authors:  Terence Jackson; Joseph S Lim; James Kurtz; Edward E Cho; Shyam Vedantam; Kei Nagatomo; Houssam Osman; Dhiresh Rohan Jeyarajah
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.