Literature DB >> 33135785

Formal robotic training diminishes the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: Implications for new programs in complex robotic surgery.

Carl R Schmidt1, Britney R Harris1, Kelsey A Musgrove1, Pavan Rao1, J Wallis Marsh1, Alan A Thomay1, Melissa E Hogg2, Herbert J Zeh3, Amer H Zureikat4, Brian A Boone1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The learning curve associated with robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) is a hurdle for new programs to achieve optimal results. Since early analysis, robotic training has recently expanded, and the RPD approach has been refined. The purpose of this study is to examine RPD outcomes for surgeons who implemented a new program after receiving formal RPD training to determine if such training reduces the learning curve.
METHODS: Outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing RPD at a single tertiary institution were compared to optimal RPD benchmarks from a previously reported learning curve analysis. Two surgical oncologists with formal RPD training performed all operations with one surgeon as bedside assistant and the other at the console.
RESULTS: Forty consecutive RPD operations were evaluated. Mean operative time was 354 ± 54 min, and blood loss was 300 ml. Length of stay was 7 days. Three patients (7.5%) underwent conversion to open. Pancreatic fistula affected five patients (12.5%). Operative time was stable over the study and lower than the reported benchmark. These RPD operative outcomes were similar to reported surgeon outcomes after the learning curve.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests formal robotic training facilitates safe and efficient adoption of RPD for new programs, reducing or eliminating the learning curve.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  learning curve; robotic curriculum; robotic pancreatectomy; robotic training

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33135785      PMCID: PMC7902319          DOI: 10.1002/jso.26284

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   3.454


  31 in total

1.  Effect of hospital volume, surgeon experience, and surgeon volume on patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  C Max Schmidt; Olivier Turrini; Purvi Parikh; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Atilla Nakeeb; Thomas J Howard; Henry A Pitt; Keith D Lillemoe
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-07

2.  Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS).

Authors:  Moritz N Wente; Claudio Bassi; Christos Dervenis; Abe Fingerhut; Dirk J Gouma; Jakob R Izbicki; John P Neoptolemos; Robert T Padbury; Michael G Sarr; L William Traverso; Charles J Yeo; Markus W Büchler
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 3.  The 2016 update of the International Study Group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 Years After.

Authors:  Claudio Bassi; Giovanni Marchegiani; Christos Dervenis; Micheal Sarr; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Mustapha Adham; Peter Allen; Roland Andersson; Horacio J Asbun; Marc G Besselink; Kevin Conlon; Marco Del Chiaro; Massimo Falconi; Laureano Fernandez-Cruz; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Abe Fingerhut; Helmut Friess; Dirk J Gouma; Thilo Hackert; Jakob Izbicki; Keith D Lillemoe; John P Neoptolemos; Attila Olah; Richard Schulick; Shailesh V Shrikhande; Tadahiro Takada; Kyoichi Takaori; William Traverso; Charles R Vollmer; Christopher L Wolfgang; Charles J Yeo; Roberto Salvia; Marcus Buchler
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Training in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resections: a paradigm shift away from "See one, Do one, Teach one".

Authors:  Melissa E Hogg; Marc G Besselink; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Abe Fingerhut; D Rohan Jeyarajah; David A Kooby; A James Moser; Henry A Pitt; Oliver A Varban; Charles M Vollmer; Herbert J Zeh; Paul Hansen
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.647

5.  Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery.

Authors:  Genevieve Dulan; Robert V Rege; Deborah C Hogg; Kristine M Gilberg-Fisher; Nabeel A Arain; Seifu T Tesfay; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy.

Authors:  Niccolò Napoli; Emanuele F Kauffmann; Vittorio Grazio Perrone; Mario Miccoli; Stefania Brozzetti; Ugo Boggi
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2015-05-20

Review 7.  How to train and evaluate minimally invasive pancreas surgery.

Authors:  Charles C Vining; Melissa E Hogg
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-03-25       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 8.  Towards standardized robotic surgery in gastrointestinal oncology.

Authors:  Lawrence M Knab; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 3.445

9.  Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy Biotissue Curriculum has Validity and Improves Technical Performance for Surgical Oncology Fellows.

Authors:  Vernissia Tam; Mazen Zenati; Stephanie Novak; Yong Chen; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.891

10.  500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance.

Authors:  Amer H Zureikat; Joal D Beane; Mazen S Zenati; Amr I Al Abbas; Brian A Boone; A James Moser; David L Bartlett; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 13.787

View more
  1 in total

1.  Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: trends in technique and training challenges.

Authors:  Catherine H Davis; Miral S Grandhi; Victor P Gazivoda; Alissa Greenbaum; Timothy J Kennedy; Russell C Langan; H Richard Alexander; Henry A Pitt; David A August
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.453

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.