Learning Curve

BackgroundIncreased uptake of robotic surgery has led to interest in learning curves for robot-assisted procedures. Learning curves, however, are often poorly defined. This systematic review was conducted to identify the available evidence investigating surgeon learning curves in robot-assisted surgery.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2018, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, alongside hand searches of key congresses and existing reviews. Eligible articles were those assessing learning curves associated with robot-assisted surgery in patients.ResultsSearches identified 2316 records, of which 68 met the eligibility criteria, reporting on 68 unique studies. Of these, 49 assessed learning curves based on patient data across ten surgical specialties. All 49 were observational, largely single-arm (35 of 49, 71 per cent) and included few surgeons. Learning curves exhibited substantial heterogeneity, varying between procedures, studies and metrics. Standards of reporting were generally poor, with only 17 of 49 (35 per cent) quantifying previous experience. Methods used to assess the learning curve were heterogeneous, often lacking statistical validation and using ambiguous terminology.ConclusionLearning curve estimates were subject to considerable uncertainty. Robust evidence was lacking, owing to limitations in study design, frequent reporting gaps and substantial heterogeneity in the methods used to assess learning curves. The opportunity remains for the establishment of optimal quantitative methods for the assessment of learning curves, to inform surgical training programmes and improve patient outcomes.

ImportanceRobot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible. As a new technique, RPD has a learning curve similar to that of other types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. To our knowledge, no reports exist on the outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and RPD after the learning curve.ObjectiveTo analyze and evaluate the actual advantages of RPD.Design, setting, and participantsBetween May 2010 and December 2018, 450 patients underwent RPD in the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, a high-volume pancreatic disease center. According to our previous study, an important flexion point in the learning curve is 250 cases. Data on the last 200 RPD cases were collected from January 2017 to December 2018. During that period, 634 patients underwent OPD. These patients were divided into 2 groups, and propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. The demographic data and operative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Analysis began May 2019.ExposuresRobot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and OPD.Main outcomes and measuresThe short-term operative outcomes of RPD and OPD.ResultsAfter 1:1 matching, 187 cases of RPD and OPD were recorded. In the RPD group, 78 patients (41.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9 (11.4) years. In the OPD group, 80 patients (42.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1 (10.8) years. Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy had advantages in operative time (mean [SD], 279.7 [76.3] minutes vs 298.2 [78.3] minutes; P = .02), estimated blood loss (mean [SD], 297.3 [246.8] mL vs 415.2 [497.9] mL; P = .002), and postoperative length of hospital stay (mean [SD], 22.4 [16.7] days vs 26.1 [16.3] days; P = .03). However, there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate and incidence rate of postoperative complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. The incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and reoperation in the RPD group were similar to those in the OPD group, with no statistically significant difference.Conclusions and relevanceAfter passing the learning curve, RPD had advantages in operative time and blood loss compared with OPD. There were no differences in postoperative complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. However, patients recovered more quickly after RPD than after OPD. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed in the future to verify these results.

Interbody fusion is a common surgical technique for diseases of the lumbar spine. Biportal endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) is a novel minimally invasive technique that has a long learning curve, which can be a barrier for surgeons. Therefore, we analyzed the learning curve in terms of operative time and evaluated the outcomes of BE-LIF. A retrospective study of fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent BE-LIF for degenerative lumbar disease by a single surgeon from January 2017 to December 2018 was performed. Fifty patients underwent a single-level procedure, and 7 underwent surgery at two levels. The mean follow-up period was 24 months (range, 14-38). Total operative time, postoperative drainage volume, time to ambulation, and complications were analyzed. Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, and modified Macnab criteria. The learning curve was evaluated by a nonparametric regression locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curve. Cases before the stable point on the curve were designated as group A, and those after the stable point were designated group B. Operative time decreased as the number of cases increased. A stable point was noticed on the 400th day and the 34th case after the first BE-LIF was performed. All cases showed improved ODI and VAS scores at the final follow-up. Overall mean operative time was 171.74 ± 35.1 min. Mean operative time was significantly lower in group B (139.7 ± 11.6 min) compared to group A (193.4 ± 28.3 min). Time to ambulation was significantly lower in group B compared to group A. VAS and ODI scores did not differ between the two groups. BE-LIF is an effective minimally invasive technique for lumbar degenerative disease. In our case series, this technique required approximately 34 cases to reach an adequate performance level.

IntroductionThe learning curve refers to the relationship between a learner's execution of a task and the number of attempts or time necessary to perform it in a predictable, reliable, and optimal fashion. The learner's competence in a task should improve over time as they execute the job more frequently. The present investigation aims to clarify the learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eifelklinik St. Brigida, Simmerath, Germany, between 2021 and 2025 were prospectively screened for participation in this clinical study. All procedures were performed through a medial parapatellar approach, following a functional alignment strategy. Implantation was performed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations using the Smith & Nephew Legion Genesis II system with a posterior-stabilised polyethylene insert. Both femoral and tibial components were cemented with Palacos cement (Heraeus Medical GmbH, Wehrheim, Germany). Postoperative physiotherapy followed the standard institutional protocol. At hospital admission, demographic variables including age, body mass index (BMI), and sex were recorded. Operative time was documented for each procedure and defined as the interval from skin incision to completion of wound closure.ResultsThe first 200 robotic-assisted TKAs were monitored. 66% (112 of 200 patients) were women, and 47.5% (95 of 200 TKAs) were performed on the right side. The mean age of the patients was 68.6 ± 8.1 years, and their BMI was 28.6 kg/m². The exponential decay model revealed a characteristic learning curve, characterised by initial rapid gains followed by a plateau. The estimated asymptotic operative time was approximately 89.2 minutes, with a learning rate coefficient of 0.035. This implies that the majority of efficiency improvements occur early, but meaningful reductions persist beyond the 20th case. Block-wise comparisons supported the existence of an earlier functional learning threshold. Statistically significant reductions in operative time, compared with the first 10 cases, were observed from the 41st to 50th procedure block (p = 0.02), with stabilisation in the 90-minute range thereafter.ConclusionThe most efficient gains occur early, and operative times stabilise at around 90 minutes after approximately 40 procedures.RegistrationGerman Registry of Clinical Trials (ID DRKS00030614).