Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2011

Open Access 01-03-2011

Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Authors: Malak B. Bokhari, Chirag B. Patel, Diego I. Ramos-Valadez, Madhu Ragupathi, Eric M. Haas

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) is evolving as an important surgical approach in the field of colorectal surgery. We aimed to evaluate the learning curve for RALS procedures involving resections of the rectum and rectosigmoid.

Methods

A series of 50 consecutive RALS procedures were performed between August 2008 and September 2009. Data were entered into a retrospective database and later abstracted for analysis. The surgical procedures included abdominoperineal resection (APR), anterior rectosigmoidectomy (AR), low anterior resection (LAR), and rectopexy (RP). Demographic data and intraoperative parameters including docking time (DT), surgeon console time (SCT), and total operative time (OT) were analyzed. The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

Results

The procedures performed for 50 patients (54% male) included 25 AR (50%), 15 LAR (30%), 6 APR (12%), and 4 RP (8%). The mean age of the patients was 54.4 years, the mean BMI was 27.8 kg/m2, and the median American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was 2. The series had a mean DT of 14 min, a mean SCT of 115.1 min, and a mean OT of 246.1 min. The DT and SCT accounted for 6.3% and 46.8% of the OT, respectively. The SCT learning curve was analyzed. The CUSUMSCT learning curve was best modeled as a parabola, with equation CUSUMSCT in minutes equal to 0.73 × case number2 − 31.54 × case number − 107.72 (R = 0.93). The learning curve consisted of three unique phases: phase 1 (the initial 15 cases), phase 2 (the middle 10 cases), and phase 3 (the subsequent cases). Phase 1 represented the initial learning curve, which spanned 15 cases. The phase 2 plateau represented increased competence with the robotic technology. Phase 3 was achieved after 25 cases and represented the mastery phase in which more challenging cases were managed.

Conclusions

The three phases identified with CUSUM analysis of surgeon console time represented characteristic stages of the learning curve for robotic colorectal procedures. The data suggest that the learning phase was achieved after 15 to 25 cases.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tekkis PP, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Remzi FH, Senagore AJ, Wu JS, Strong SA, Poloneicki JD, Hull TL, Church JM (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. Ann Surg 241:262–268PubMedCrossRef Tekkis PP, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Remzi FH, Senagore AJ, Wu JS, Strong SA, Poloneicki JD, Hull TL, Church JM (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. Ann Surg 241:262–268PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Taylor RH, Funda J, Eldridge B, Gomory S, Gruben K, LaRose D, Talamini M, Kavoussi L, Anderson J (1995) A telerobotic assistant for laparoscopic surgery. IEEE Eng Med Biol 14:279–288CrossRef Taylor RH, Funda J, Eldridge B, Gomory S, Gruben K, LaRose D, Talamini M, Kavoussi L, Anderson J (1995) A telerobotic assistant for laparoscopic surgery. IEEE Eng Med Biol 14:279–288CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694 discussion 1695–1686PubMedCrossRef Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694 discussion 1695–1686PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Hashizume M, Tsugawa K (2004) Robotic surgery and cancer: the present state, problems, and future vision. Jpn J Clin Oncol 34:227–237PubMedCrossRef Hashizume M, Tsugawa K (2004) Robotic surgery and cancer: the present state, problems, and future vision. Jpn J Clin Oncol 34:227–237PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chaput de Saintonge DM, Vere DW (1974) Why don’t doctors use CUSUMs? Lancet 1:120–121 Chaput de Saintonge DM, Vere DW (1974) Why don’t doctors use CUSUMs? Lancet 1:120–121
6.
go back to reference Wohl H (1977) The CUSUM plot: its utility in the analysis of clinical data. N Engl J Med 296:1044–1045PubMedCrossRef Wohl H (1977) The CUSUM plot: its utility in the analysis of clinical data. N Engl J Med 296:1044–1045PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Biswas P, Kalbfleisch JD (2008) A risk-adjusted CUSUM in continuous time based on the Cox model. Stat Med 27:3382–3406PubMedCrossRef Biswas P, Kalbfleisch JD (2008) A risk-adjusted CUSUM in continuous time based on the Cox model. Stat Med 27:3382–3406PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Steiner SH, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Treasure T (2000) Monitoring surgical performance using risk-adjusted cumulative sum charts. Biostatistics 1:441–452PubMedCrossRef Steiner SH, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Treasure T (2000) Monitoring surgical performance using risk-adjusted cumulative sum charts. Biostatistics 1:441–452PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bell MC, Torgerson JL, Kreaden U (2009) The first 100 da Vinci hysterectomies: an analysis of the learning curve for a single surgeon. S D Med 62(91):93–95 Bell MC, Torgerson JL, Kreaden U (2009) The first 100 da Vinci hysterectomies: an analysis of the learning curve for a single surgeon. S D Med 62(91):93–95
10.
go back to reference Tsao AK, Smaldone MD, Averch TD, Jackman SV (2009) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the first 100 patients—improving patient safety and outcomes. J Endourol 23:481–484PubMedCrossRef Tsao AK, Smaldone MD, Averch TD, Jackman SV (2009) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the first 100 patients—improving patient safety and outcomes. J Endourol 23:481–484PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1633–1639PubMedCrossRef Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1633–1639PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242:83–91PubMedCrossRef Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242:83–91PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Seike K, Koda K, Oda K, Kosugi C, Shimizu K, Miyazaki M (2009) Gender differences in pelvic anatomy and effects on rectal cancer surgery. Hepatogastroenterology 56:111–115PubMed Seike K, Koda K, Oda K, Kosugi C, Shimizu K, Miyazaki M (2009) Gender differences in pelvic anatomy and effects on rectal cancer surgery. Hepatogastroenterology 56:111–115PubMed
14.
go back to reference Scheer A, Martel G, Moloo H, Sabri E, Poulin EC, Mamazza J, Boushey RP (2009) Laparoscopic colon surgery: does operative time matter? Dis Colon Rectum 52:1746–1752 Scheer A, Martel G, Moloo H, Sabri E, Poulin EC, Mamazza J, Boushey RP (2009) Laparoscopic colon surgery: does operative time matter? Dis Colon Rectum 52:1746–1752
Metadata
Title
Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery
Authors
Malak B. Bokhari
Chirag B. Patel
Diego I. Ramos-Valadez
Madhu Ragupathi
Eric M. Haas
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1281-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2011 Go to the issue