F S Wehrtmann1, J R de la Garza1, K F Kowalewski1, M W Schmidt1, K Müller1, C Tapking1, P Probst2, M K Diener2, L Fischer3, B P Müller-Stich1, F Nickel4. 1. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. The Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, Hospital Mittelbaden, Balger Strasse 50, 76532, Baden-Baden, Germany. 4. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. felix.nickel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Impact of learning curves on operative outcome has been well shown, but the necessary learning curves have not been clearly defined. This study provides a systematic review of the literature and proposes a standardization of phases of learning curves for RYGB and LSG. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. All studies specifying a number or range of approaches to characterize the learning curve for RYGB and LSG were selected. RESULTS: A total of 28 publications related to learning curves for 27,770 performed bariatric surgeries were included. Parameters used to determine the learning curve were operative time, complications, conversions, length of stay, and blood loss. Learning curve range was 30-500 (RYGB) and 30-200 operations (LSG) according to different definitions and respective phases of learning curves. Learning phases described the number of procedures necessary to achieve predefined skill levels, such as competency, proficiency, and mastery. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of learning curves for bariatric surgery are heterogeneous. Introduction of the three skill phases competency, proficiency, and mastery is proposed to provide a standardized definition using multiple outcome variables to enable better comparison in the future. These levels are reached after 30-70, 70-150, and up to 500 RYGB, and after 30-50, 60-100, and 100-200 LSG. Training curricula, previous laparoscopic experience, and high procedure volume are hallmarks for successful outcomes during the learning curve.
BACKGROUND: The most commonly performed bariatric procedures are laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Impact of learning curves on operative outcome has been well shown, but the necessary learning curves have not been clearly defined. This study provides a systematic review of the literature and proposes a standardization of phases of learning curves for RYGB and LSG. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. All studies specifying a number or range of approaches to characterize the learning curve for RYGB and LSG were selected. RESULTS: A total of 28 publications related to learning curves for 27,770 performed bariatric surgeries were included. Parameters used to determine the learning curve were operative time, complications, conversions, length of stay, and blood loss. Learning curve range was 30-500 (RYGB) and 30-200 operations (LSG) according to different definitions and respective phases of learning curves. Learning phases described the number of procedures necessary to achieve predefined skill levels, such as competency, proficiency, and mastery. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of learning curves for bariatric surgery are heterogeneous. Introduction of the three skill phases competency, proficiency, and mastery is proposed to provide a standardized definition using multiple outcome variables to enable better comparison in the future. These levels are reached after 30-70, 70-150, and up to 500 RYGB, and after 30-50, 60-100, and 100-200 LSG. Training curricula, previous laparoscopic experience, and high procedure volume are hallmarks for successful outcomes during the learning curve.
Authors: Nancy Puzziferri; Iselin T Austrheim-Smith; Bruce M Wolfe; Samuel E Wilson; Ninh T Nguyen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Mona W Schmidt; Caelan M Haney; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Vasile V Bintintan; Mohammed Abu Hilal; Alberto Arezzo; Marcus Bahra; Marc G Besselink; Matthias Biebl; Luigi Boni; Michele Diana; Jan H Egberts; Lars Fischer; Nader Francis; Daniel A Hashimoto; Daniel Perez; Marlies Schijven; Moritz Schmelzle; Marek Soltes; Lee Swanstrom; Thilo Welsch; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Carolina Vanetta; Nicolás H Dreifuss; Francisco Schlottmann; Alberto Mangano; Antonio Cubisino; Valentina Valle; Carolina Baz; Francesco M Bianco; Chandra Hassan; Antonio Gangemi; Mario A Masrur Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: James G Redmann; Thomas E Lavin; Matthew S French; Toby D Broussard; Maxime Lapointe-Gagner Journal: JSLS Date: 2020 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Eva Kalkum; Rosa Klotz; Svenja Seide; Felix J Hüttner; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Felix Nickel; Elias Khajeh; Phillip Knebel; Markus K Diener; Pascal Probst Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.445