I Kassite1,2, T Bejan-Angoulvant3, H Lardy4, A Binet4. 1. Pediatric Surgery Department, Gatien de Clocheville Hospital, University Teaching Hospital of Tours, 37000, Tours, France. kcitibti@gmail.com. 2. Hopital Gatien de Clocheville - CHU de TOURS, 49, Boulevard Beranger, 37044, Tours, France. kcitibti@gmail.com. 3. Pharmacology Department, Bretonneau Hospital, University Teaching Hospital of Tours, 37000, Tours, France. 4. Pediatric Surgery Department, Gatien de Clocheville Hospital, University Teaching Hospital of Tours, 37000, Tours, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rapid adoption of the robotic surgery, more and more learning curve (LC) papers are being published but there is no set definition of what should constitute a rigorous analysis and represent a true LC. A systematic review of the robotic surgical literature was undertaken to determine the range and heterogeneity of parameters reported in studies assessing the LC in robotic surgery. METHODS: The search was conducted in July 2017 in PubMed. All studies reporting a LC in robotic surgery were included. 268 (25%) of the identified studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: 102 (38%) studies did not define nor explicitly state the LC with appropriate evidence; 166 studies were considered for quantitative analysis. 46 different parameters of 6 different outcome domains were reported with a median of two parameters (1-8) and 1 domain (1-5) per study. Overall, three domains were only technical and three domains were both technical and clinical/patient-centered outcomes. The two most commonly reported domains were operative time [146 studies (88%)] and intraoperative outcomes [31 studies (19%)]. Postoperative outcomes [16 studies (9%)] and surgical success [11 studies (7%)] were reported infrequently. Purely technical outcomes were the most frequently used to assess LC [131 studies (79%)]. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported in studies assessing LC in robotic surgery are extremely heterogeneous and are most often technical indicators of surgical performance rather than clinical and patient-centered outcomes. There is no single outcome that best represents the surgical success. A standardized multi-outcome approach to assessing LC is recommended.
BACKGROUND: With the rapid adoption of the robotic surgery, more and more learning curve (LC) papers are being published but there is no set definition of what should constitute a rigorous analysis and represent a true LC. A systematic review of the robotic surgical literature was undertaken to determine the range and heterogeneity of parameters reported in studies assessing the LC in robotic surgery. METHODS: The search was conducted in July 2017 in PubMed. All studies reporting a LC in robotic surgery were included. 268 (25%) of the identified studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: 102 (38%) studies did not define nor explicitly state the LC with appropriate evidence; 166 studies were considered for quantitative analysis. 46 different parameters of 6 different outcome domains were reported with a median of two parameters (1-8) and 1 domain (1-5) per study. Overall, three domains were only technical and three domains were both technical and clinical/patient-centered outcomes. The two most commonly reported domains were operative time [146 studies (88%)] and intraoperative outcomes [31 studies (19%)]. Postoperative outcomes [16 studies (9%)] and surgical success [11 studies (7%)] were reported infrequently. Purely technical outcomes were the most frequently used to assess LC [131 studies (79%)]. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported in studies assessing LC in robotic surgery are extremely heterogeneous and are most often technical indicators of surgical performance rather than clinical and patient-centered outcomes. There is no single outcome that best represents the surgical success. A standardized multi-outcome approach to assessing LC is recommended.
Authors: Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Antoine Duclos; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Tudor Borza; Hua-Yin Yu; Keith J Kowalczyk; Jim C Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sebastian G de la Fuente; Jill Weber; Sarah E Hoffe; Ravi Shridhar; Richard Karl; Kenneth L Meredith Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Colby Perkins; Catherine Bresee; M Jonathon Solnik; Benjamin Sherman; John Fritch; Bruno Gross; Samantha Jagannathan; Niv Hakami-Majd; Raymund Avenido; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Naomi Laura Sharma; Alexandros Papadopoulos; Dominic Lee; John McLoughlin; Sarah L Vowler; Herve Baumert; Anne Y Warren; Vishal Patil; Nimish Shah; David E Neal Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Wolfgang Kunert; Pirmin Storz; Nicolaus Dietz; Steffen Axt; Claudius Falch; Andreas Kirschniak; Peter Wilhelm Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 4.584