Théophile Guilbaud1, David Jérémie Birnbaum2, Stéphane Berdah2, Olivier Farges3, Laura Beyer Berjot2. 1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Aix-Marseille Université, Chemin Des Bourrely, 13015, Marseille, France. theo.guilbaud@gmail.com. 2. Department of Digestive Surgery, Aix-Marseille Université, Chemin Des Bourrely, 13015, Marseille, France. 3. Department of Pancreatic and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris VII, 100 Boulevard du Général Leclerc, 92110, Clichy, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach is widely accepted as the procedure of choice for abdominal surgery. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has advanced slowly due to the significant learning curve (LC), and only few publications have dealt with advanced training in LLR. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted systematic research through MEDLINE and EMBASE with combinations of the following keywords: (learning curve OR teaching OR training OR simulation OR education) AND (liver OR hepatic) AND (laparoscopic OR laparoscopy). Robotic-assisted, hand-assisted and hybrid LLRs were excluded. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were retrieved. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Thirteen articles assessed the LC during real-life LLR, and six articles focussed on simulation and training programmes in LLR. The LC in minor LLR comprised 60 cases overall, and 15 cases for standardised left lateral sectionectomy. For major LLR (MLLR), the LC was 50 cases for most studies, but was reported to be 15-20 cases in more recent studies, provided MLLR is performed progressively in selected patients. However, there was heterogeneity in the literature regarding the number of minor LLRs required before MLLR, with 60 minor LLRs reported as the minimum. Six studies showed a potential benefit of simulation and training programmes in this field. The gradual implementation of LLR combined with simulation-based training programmes could reduce the clinical impact of LC. CONCLUSIONS: The LC in LLR is a long process, and MLLR should be gradually implemented under the supervision of experienced surgeons. Training outside the operating room may reduce the LC in real-life situations.
BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach is widely accepted as the procedure of choice for abdominal surgery. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has advanced slowly due to the significant learning curve (LC), and only few publications have dealt with advanced training in LLR. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted systematic research through MEDLINE and EMBASE with combinations of the following keywords: (learning curve OR teaching OR training OR simulation OR education) AND (liver OR hepatic) AND (laparoscopic OR laparoscopy). Robotic-assisted, hand-assisted and hybrid LLRs were excluded. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were retrieved. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Thirteen articles assessed the LC during real-life LLR, and six articles focussed on simulation and training programmes in LLR. The LC in minor LLR comprised 60 cases overall, and 15 cases for standardised left lateral sectionectomy. For major LLR (MLLR), the LC was 50 cases for most studies, but was reported to be 15-20 cases in more recent studies, provided MLLR is performed progressively in selected patients. However, there was heterogeneity in the literature regarding the number of minor LLRs required before MLLR, with 60 minor LLRs reported as the minimum. Six studies showed a potential benefit of simulation and training programmes in this field. The gradual implementation of LLR combined with simulation-based training programmes could reduce the clinical impact of LC. CONCLUSIONS: The LC in LLR is a long process, and MLLR should be gradually implemented under the supervision of experienced surgeons. Training outside the operating room may reduce the LC in real-life situations.
Authors: Edward Lin; Samuel Szomstein; Talat Addasi; Lisa Galati-Burke; James W Turner; Howard I Tiszenkel Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Marcel J van der Poel; Floor Huisman; Olivier R Busch; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Thomas M van Gulik; Pieter J Tanis; Marc G Besselink Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: L Beyer-Berjot; P Pucher; V Patel; D A Hashimoto; P Ziprin; S Berdah; A Darzi; R Aggarwal Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: Leanne M Sutherland; Philippa F Middleton; Adrian Anthony; Jeffrey Hamdorf; Patrick Cregan; David Scott; Guy J Maddern Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Marcel J van der Poel; Marc G Besselink; Federica Cipriani; Thomas Armstrong; Arjun S Takhar; Susan van Dieren; John N Primrose; Neil W Pearce; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Bartlomiej Banas; Piotr Kolodziejczyk; Aleksandra Czerw; Tomasz Banas; Artur Kotwas; Piotr Richter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-17 Impact factor: 4.614