A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity
With the rapid adoption of the robotic surgery, more and more learning curve (LC) papers are being published but there is no set definition of what should constitute a rigorous analysis and represent a true LC. A systematic review of the robotic surgical literature was undertaken to determine the range and heterogeneity of parameters reported in studies assessing the LC in robotic surgery.
The search was conducted in July 2017 in PubMed. All studies reporting a LC in robotic surgery were included. 268 (25%) of the identified studies met the inclusion criteria.
102 (38%) studies did not define nor explicitly state the LC with appropriate evidence; 166 studies were considered for quantitative analysis. 46 different parameters of 6 different outcome domains were reported with a median of two parameters (1–8) and 1 domain (1–5) per study. Overall, three domains were only technical and three domains were both technical and clinical/patient-centered outcomes. The two most commonly reported domains were operative time [146 studies (88%)] and intraoperative outcomes [31 studies (19%)]. Postoperative outcomes [16 studies (9%)] and surgical success [11 studies (7%)] were reported infrequently. Purely technical outcomes were the most frequently used to assess LC [131 studies (79%)].
The outcomes reported in studies assessing LC in robotic surgery are extremely heterogeneous and are most often technical indicators of surgical performance rather than clinical and patient-centered outcomes. There is no single outcome that best represents the surgical success. A standardized multi-outcome approach to assessing LC is recommended.
KeywordsLearning curve Robotic surgery Surgical outcomes Proficiency
Compliance with ethical standards
T. Bejan-Angoulvant, H. Lardy, A. Binet have no conflict of interest to declare related to the present work.
- 18.Good DW, Stewart GD, Laird A, Stolzenburg J-U, Cahill D, McNeill SA (2015) A critical analysis of the learning curve and postlearning curve outcomes of two experience- and volume-matched surgeons for laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 29(8):939–947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Thompson JE, Egger S, Böhm M, Haynes A-M, Matthews J, Rasiah K et al (2014) Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 65(3):521–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Kuo L-J, Lin Y-K, Chang C-C, Tai C-J, Chiou J-F, Chang Y-J (2014) Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(5):555–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Morelli L, Guadagni S, Lorenzoni V, Di Franco G, Cobuccio L, Palmeri M et al (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon’s experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(9):1639–1648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Park EJ, Kim CW, Cho MS, Kim DW, Min BS, Baik SH et al (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(25):e109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Melich G, Hong YK, Kim J, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK et al (2015) Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics 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(3):558–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Vilallonga R, Fort JM, Gonzalez O, Caubet E, Boleko A, Neff KJ et al (2012) The initial learning curve for robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy: a surgeon’s experience while introducing the robotic technology in a Bariatric Surgery Department. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:347131PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 76.Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH (2011) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120(3):413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 97.Hemli JM, Henn LW, Panetta CR, Suh JS, Shukri SR, Jennings JM et al (2013) Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted endoscopic harvesting of the left internal mammary artery. Innov Phila Pa 8(5):353–358Google Scholar
- 113.Noyez L (2013) Cumulative sum analysis: a simple and practical tool for monitoring and auditing clinical performance. Health Care Curr Rev 2(1):1–3Google Scholar