Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs
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”.
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.
Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.
KeywordsMinimally invasive surgery Robotic surgery Rectal surgery Rectal cancer Learning curve
- 2.Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Jiménez Rodríguez RM, Díaz Pavón JM, De la Portilla De Juan F, Prendes Sillero E, Cadet Dussort JMH, Padillo J (2011) Prospective, randomized, short-term outcome study: robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparosocpic surgery in colorectal carcinoma resection. Cir Esp 89:432–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS (2011) Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case–control study. Dis Colon rectum 54:151–156Google Scholar
- 18.Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY (2014) Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons from a single surgeon’s experience. Dis Colon rectum 57:1066–1074Google Scholar
- 19.Park EJ, Kim CW, Cho MS, Baik SH, Kim DW, Min BS, Lee KY, Kim NK (2014) Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer? A comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Medicine (Baltimore) 93:e109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Melich G, Hong YK, Kim J, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, Sender Liberman AS, Min BS (2015) Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotic provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves. Surg Endosc 29:558–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Bege T, Lelong B, Esterni B, Turrini O, Guiramand J, Francon D, Mokart D, Houvenaeghel G, Giovannini M, Delpero JR (2010) The learning curve for the laparoscopic approach to conservative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons drawn from a single institution’s experience. Ann Surg 251:249–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Furst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ (2013) Colorectal cancer laparoscopic or open resection II (COLOR II) Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Targarona EM, Balagué C, Pernas JC, Martinez C, Berindoague R, Gich I, Trias M (2008) Can we predict immediate outcome after laparoscopic rectal surgery? Multivariate analysis of clinical, anatomic and pathologic features after 3-dimensional reconstruction of the pelvic anatomy. Ann Surg 247:642–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon rectum 45:1689–1694Google Scholar