Literature DB >> 27637706

Evaluation of the learning curve of total robotic hysterectomy with or without lymphadenectomy for a gynecologic oncology service.

Rodney P Rocconi1, Courtney Meredith2, Michael A Finan2.   

Abstract

We sought to determine the learning curve for total robotic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TRH, BSO) with/without lymphadenectomy (LND) for a gynecologic oncology service. Data was collected prospectively and included demographics, surgical data, and timed data points to calculate times for the following categories: total operating room (OR) time, setup time, hysterectomy (HYST) time, lymphadenectomy (LND) time, and console time. Cases were grouped into tens by chronological order and compared. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum (CUSUM) model was used to evaluate learning curves for hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy. The first 155 patients are reported. Average HYST time was 45.2 min and average LND time was 52.4 min. Cases were grouped by each consecutive 10 cases per surgeon (i.e. Group 1 = cases 1-10 for each surgeon). All groups were similar with respect to age, body mass index, stage, grade, cancer type, number of lymph nodes, and uterine weight. All times significantly improved with the increase in number of cases: total OR time (P < 0.001); setup time (P = 0.004); HYST time (P = 0.001); LND time (P = 0.05); console time (P = 0.05). CUSUM analysis demonstrated a learning curve of 14 cases for HYST time and 19 cases for lymphadenectomy. Our data describes the robotic laparoscopic learning curves for both hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy in a gynecologic oncology practice and could be utilized for hospital credentialing. The amount of experience required to achieve maximum time efficiency for robotic lymphadenectomy was greater than that for hysterectomy. A significant improvement was observed in all timed data points collected, and the time to proficiency appears reasonable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CUSUM; Endometrial cancer; Learning curve; Robotic surgery

Year:  2011        PMID: 27637706     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0258-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  16 in total

1.  The use of the Cusum technique in the assessment of trainee competence in new procedures.

Authors:  S Bolsin; M Colson
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.038

2.  The learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is 100 cases.

Authors:  P Schauer; S Ikramuddin; G Hamad; W Gourash
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-12-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery.

Authors:  Anna V Hoekstra; Arati Jairam-Thodla; Alfred Rademaker; Diljeet K Singh; Barbara M Buttin; John R Lurain; Julian C Schink; M Patrick Lowe
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.547

Review 4.  Quantitative and individualized assessment of the learning curve using LC-CUSUM.

Authors:  D J Biau; S M Williams; M M Schlup; R S Nizard; R Porcher
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  ERCP: a review of technical competency and workload in a small unit.

Authors:  M M Schlup; S M Williams; G O Barbezat
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections.

Authors:  Paris P Tekkis; Antony J Senagore; Conor P Delaney; Victor W Fazio
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.

Authors:  Maria C Bell; Jenny Torgerson; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; Allison Wierda Suttle; Sharon Hunt
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  M Patrick Lowe; Peter R Johnson; Scott A Kamelle; Saurabh Kumar; Donald H Chamberlain; Todd D Tillmanns
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Leigh G Seamon; David E Cohn; Debra L Richardson; Sue Valmadre; Matthew J Carlson; Gary S Phillips; Jeffrey M Fowler
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.

Authors:  Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  1 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted hysterectomy: patient selection and perspectives.

Authors:  Noam Smorgick
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2017-03-23
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.