INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: "rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery". RESULTS: A total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients. CONCLUSION: Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: "rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery". RESULTS: A total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients. CONCLUSION: Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.
Authors: Rosa M Jiménez Rodríguez; José M Díaz Pavón; Fernando de La Portilla de Juan; Emilio Prendes Sillero; Jean Marie Hisnard Cadet Dussort; Javier Padillo Journal: Cir Esp Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 1.653
Authors: Thierry Bege; Bernard Lelong; Benjamin Esterni; Olivier Turrini; Jerôme Guiramand; Daniel Francon; Djamel Mokart; Gilles Houvenaeghel; Marc Giovannini; Jean Robert Delpero Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Salvatore A Parascandola; Salini Hota; Andrew D Sparks; Sameh Boulos; Kathryn Cavallo; George Kim; Vincent Obias Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: C Galata; G Vassilev; F Haas; P Kienle; S Büttner; C Reißfelder; Julia Hardt Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: J C Bolger; M P Broe; M A Zarog; A Looney; K McKevitt; D Walsh; S Giri; C Peirce; J C Coffey Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Samer A Naffouje; Muhammed A Ali; Sivesh K Kamarajah; Bradley White; George I Salti; Fadi Dahdaleh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Adam D Shellito; Sonam Kapadia; Amy H Kaji; Cynthia M Tom; Christine Dauphine; Beverley A Petrie Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 4.584