The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery
- 646 Downloads
Robotic rectal surgery is gaining in popularity. We aimed to define the learning curve of an experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeon in performing robot-assisted rectal surgery. We hypothesized that there are multiple phases in this learning process.
We performed a retrospective analysis. Consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted rectal surgery between July 2007 and August 2011 were identified. Operating times were analyzed using the CUSUM (cumulative sum) technique. CUSUMs were model fitted as a fourth-order polynomial. χ2, Fisher’s exact, two independent samples t test, one-way ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis, and Mann–Whitney tests were used. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
We identified 197 patients. The median (range) total operative, robot, console, and docking times (min) were 265 (145–515), 140 (59–367), 135 (50–360), and 5 (3–40), respectively. CUSUM analysis of docking time showed a learning curve of 35 cases. CUSUM analysis of total operative, robot, and console times demonstrated three phases. The first phase (35 patients) represented the initial learning curve. The second phase (93 patients) involved more challenging cases with increased operative time. The third phase (69 patients) represented the concluding phase in the learning curve. There was increased complexity of cases in the latter two phases. Of phase 1 patients, 45.7 % had tumors ≤7 cm from the anal verge compared to 64.2 % in phases 2 and 3 (p = 0.042). Of phase 1 patients, 2.9 % had neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to 32.7 % of patients in phases 2 and 3 (p < 0.001). Splenic flexure was mobilized in 8.6 % of phase 1 patients compared to 56.8 % of patients in phases 2 and 3 (p < 0.001). Median blood loss was <50 ml in all three phases. The patients in phases 2 and 3 had a longer hospital stay compared to those in phase 1 (9 vs. 8 days, p = 0.002). There were no conversions.
At least three phases in the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery are defined in our study.
KeywordsRobot-assisted Learning curve Cumulative sum Rectal cancer Colorectal Minimally invasive surgery
Kevin Kaity Sng, Masayasu Hara, Jae-Won Shin, Byung-Eun Yoo, Kyung-Sook Yang, and Seon-Hahn Kim have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 2.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 251:249–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kang SB, Park JW, Jeong SY, Nam BH, Choi HS, Kim DW, Lim SB, Lee TG, Kim DY, Kim JS, Chang HJ, Lee HS, Kim SY, Jung KH, Hong YS, Kim JH, Sohn DK, Kim DH, Oh JH (2010) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): short-term outcomes of an open-label randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 11:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Marusch F, Gastinger I, Schneider C, Scheidbach H, Konradt J, Bruch HP, Köhler L, Bärlehner E, Köckerling F; Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group (LCSSG) (2001) Experience as a factor influencing the indications for laparoscopic colorectal surgery and the results. Surg Endosc 15:116–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N (1999) Assessing operative skill. Needs to become more objective. BMJ 318:887–888Google Scholar