Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The initiation, standardization and proficiency (ISP) phases of the learning curve for minimally invasive liver resection: comparison of a fellowship-trained surgeon with the pioneers and early adopters

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Using the Ideal Development Exploration Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) paradigm, Halls et al. created risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) curves concluding that Pioneers (P) and Early Adopters (EA) of minimally invasive (MI) liver resection obtained similar results after fewer cases. In this study, we applied this framework to a MI Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary fellowship-trained surgeon (FT) in order to assess where along the curves this generation fell.

Methods

The term FT was used to designate surgeons without previous independent operative experience who went from surgical residency directly into fellowship. Three phases of the learning curve were defined using published data on EAs and Ps of MI Hepatectomy, including phase 1 (initiation) (i.e., the first 17 or 50), phase 2 (standardization) (i.e., cases 18–46 or 1–50) and phase 3 (proficiency) (i.e., cases after 46, 50 or 135). Data analysis was performed using the Social Science Statistics software (www.socscistatistics.com). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05.

Results

From November 2007 until April 2018, 95 MI hepatectomies were performed by a FT. During phase 1, the FT approached larger tumors than the EA group (p = 0.002), that were more often malignant (94.1%) when compared to the P group (52.5%) (p < 0.001). During phase 2, the FT operated on larger tumors and more malignancies (93.1%) when compared to the Ps (p = 0.004 and p = 0.017, respectively). However, there was no difference when compared to the EA. In the phase 3, the EAs tended to perform more major hepatectomies (58.7) when compared to either the FT (30.6%) (p = 0.002) or the P’s cases 51–135 and after 135 (35.3% and 44.3%, respectively) (both p values < 0.001). When compared to the Ps cases from 51–135, the FT operated on more malignancies (p = 0.012), but this was no longer the case after 135 cases by the Ps (p = 0.164). There were no statistically significant differences when conversions; major complications or 30- and 90-day mortality were compared among these 3 groups.

Discussion

Using the IDEAL framework and RA-CUSUM curves, a FT surgeon was found to have curves similar to EAs despite having no previous independent experience operating on the liver. As in our study, FTs may tend to approach larger and more malignant tumors and do more concomitant procedures in patients with higher ASA classifications than either of their predecessors, without statistically significant increases in major morbidity or mortality.

Conclusion

It is possible that the ISP (i.e., initiation, standardization, proficiency) model could apply to other innovative surgical procedures, creating different learning curves depending on where along the IDEAL paradigm surgeons fall.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eubanks TR et al (1999) An objective scoring system for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 189(6):566–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gumbs AA, Hogle NJ, Fowler DL (2007) Evaluation of resident laparoscopic performance using global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills. J Am Coll Surg 204(2):308–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hopmans CJ et al (2014) Assessment of surgery residents’ operative skills in the operating theater using a modified objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS): a prospective multicenter study. Surgery 156(5):1078–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gofton WT et al (2012) The Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE): a tool to assess surgical competence. Acad Med 87(10):1401–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fahim C et al (2018) Assessment of technical skills competence in the operating room: a systematic and scoping review. Acad Med 93(5):794–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McCulloch P et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374(9695):1105–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Halls MC et al (2019) A Comparison of the learning curves of laparoscopic liver surgeons in differing stages of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation: standing on the shoulders of pioneers. Ann Surg 269(2):221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gumbs AA, Gayet B (2007a) The medical and surgical department of digestive diseases and minimally invasive HPB fellowship at IMM. HPB (Oxford) 9(6):470–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang M et al (2016) Learning curve for laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a CUSUM analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 20(5):924–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chiow AK et al (2015) Learning curve in laparoscopic liver surgery: a fellow’s perspective. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 4(6):411–416

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J (1992) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor. Surg Endosc 6:99

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cherqui D et al (2000) Laparoscopic liver resections: a feasibility study in 30 patients. Ann Surg 232(6):753–762

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cherqui D (2001) Benign liver tumors. J Chir (Paris) 138(1):19–26

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cherqui D (2002) Laparoscopic hepatic resection. Useful or futile? Ann Chir 127(3):171–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cherqui D et al (2002) Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for liver transplantation in children. Lancet 359(9304):392–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cherqui D (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 90(6):644–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Laurent A et al (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection for subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma complicating chronic liver disease. Arch Surg 138(7): p. 763–9; discussion 769

  19. Lesurtel M et al (2003) Laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic lobectomy: a case-control study. J Am Coll Surg 196(2):236–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vibert E, Denet C, Gayet B (2003) Major digestive surgery using a remote-controlled robot: the next revolution. Arch Surg 138(9):1002–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Buell JF et al (2004) An initial experience and evolution of laparoscopic hepatic resectional surgery. Surgery 136(4):804–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gayet B et al (2005) Laparoscopic liver surgery for metastases of colorectal cancer: analysis of a monocentric experience. Suppl Tumori 4(3):S135–S137

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cherqui D et al (2006) Laparoscopic liver resection for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: midterm results and perspectives. Ann Surg 243(4):499–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang S et al (2007) Laparoscopy as a routine approach for left lateral sectionectomy. Br J Surg 94(1):58–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bryant R et al (2008) Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 17(3): 607–633, ix

  26. Buell JF et al (2008) Experience with more than 500 minimally invasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg 248(3):475–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gumbs AA, Gayet B (2007b) Totally laparoscopic left hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 21(7):1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gumbs AA, Bar-Zakai B, Gayet B (2008) Totally laparoscopic extended left hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12(7):1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gumbs AA, Gayet B (2008a) Totally laparoscopic central hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12(7):1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Buell JF et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gumbs AA, Gayet B (2008b) Video: the lateral laparoscopic approach to lesions in the posterior segments. J Gastrointest Surg 12(7):1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Coles SR et al (2015) Total laparoscopic management of lesions involving liver segment 7. Surg Endosc 29(11):3190–3195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wakabayashi G et al (2015) Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg 261(4):619–629

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cipriani F et al (2015) Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing resections for nonperipheral liver lesions, the diamond technique: technical aspects, clinical outcomes, and oncologic efficiency. J Am Coll Surg 221(2):265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Martinez-Cecilia D et al (2018) Laparoscopic parenchymal sparing resections in segment 8: techniques for a demanding and infrequent procedure. Surg Endosc 32(4):2012–2019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Abu Hilal M et al (2018) The Southampton consensus guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery: from indication to implementation. Ann Surg 268(1):11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Medbery RL et al (2014) Laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy: a value-based analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218(5):929–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown KM, Geller DA (2016) What is the learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy? J Gastrointest Surg 20(5):1065–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fretland AA et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267(2):199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ishizawa T et al (2012) Laparoscopic segmentectomy of the liver: from segment I to VIII. Ann Surg 256(6):959–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departement de Chirurgie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal, de Poissy/Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10, Rue du Champ Gaillard, 78300, Poissy, France

    Andrew A. Gumbs & Elie Chouillard

  2. Unità Chirurgia Epatobiliopancreatica, Robotica e Mininvasiva, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, via Bissolati, 57, 25124, Brescia, Italy

    Mohamed Abu Hilal

  3. Department of General-, Visceral-, Vascular- and Transplantation Surgery, University of Magdeburg, Haus 60a, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany

    Roland Croner

  4. Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutaliste Montsouris, 42, Boulevard Jourdan, 75004, Paris, France

    Brice Gayet

  5. Department of Surgery, Hôpital du Sacre Coeur, Montreal, QC, H4J 1C5, Canada

    Michel Gagner

Authors
  1. Andrew A. Gumbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed Abu Hilal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roland Croner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brice Gayet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elie Chouillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michel Gagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel Gagner.

Ethics declarations

Dr. Andrew A. Gumbs, Professor Mohamed Abu-Hilal, Professor Roland Croner, Professor Michel Gayet, Professor Brice Gayet and Professor Elie Chouillard have no financial ties or disclosures to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gumbs, A.A., Hilal, M.A., Croner, R. et al. The initiation, standardization and proficiency (ISP) phases of the learning curve for minimally invasive liver resection: comparison of a fellowship-trained surgeon with the pioneers and early adopters. Surg Endosc 35, 5268–5278 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08122-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08122-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation