Skip to main content
Log in

The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

No data are available on the learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy (RADP). The learning curve in RADP was assessed in 55 consecutive patients using the cumulative sum method, based on operative time. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and analyzed retrospectively considering all events occurring within 90 days of surgery. No operation was converted to laparoscopic or open surgery and no patient died. Post-operative complications occurred in 34 patients (61.8 %), being of Clavien–Dindo grade I–II in 32 patients (58.1 %), including pancreatic fistula in 29 patients (52.7 %). No grade C pancreatic fistula occurred. Four patients received blood transfusions (7.2 %), three were readmitted (5.4 %) and one required repeat surgery (1.8 %). Based on the reduction of operative times (421.1 ± 20.5 vs 248.9 ± 9.3 min; p < 0.0001), completion of the learning curve was achieved after ten operations. Operative time of the first 10 operations was associated with a positive slope (0.47 + 1.78* case number; R 2 0.97; p < 0.0001*), while that of the following 45 procedures showed a negative slope (23.52 − 0.39* case number; R 2 0.97; p < 0.0001*). After completion of the learning curve, more patients had a malignant histology (0 vs 35.6 %; p = 0.002), accounting for both higher lymph node yields (11.1 ± 12.2 vs 20.9 ± 18.5) (p = 0.04) and lower rate of spleen preservation (90 vs 55.6 %) (p = 0.04). RADP was safely feasible in selected patients and the learning curve was completed after ten operations. Improvement in clinical outcome was not demonstrated, probably because of the limited occurrence of outcome comparators.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Talebpour M, Alijani A, Hanna GB, Moosa Z, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2009) Proficiency-gain curve for an advanced laparoscopic procedure defined by observation clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). Surg Endosc 23:869–875

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grantcharov TP, Funch-Jensen P (2009) Can everyone achieve proficiency with the laparoscopic technique? Learning curve patterns in technical skills acquisition. Am J Surg 197:447–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Balzano G, Bissolati M, Boggi U, Bassi C, Zerbi A, Falconi M; AISP Study Group on Distal Pancreatectomy (2014) A multicenter survey on distal pancreatectomy in Italy: results of minimally invasive technique and variability of perioperative pathways. Updates Surg 66:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD, Lidor AO, Makary MA, Wolfgang CL (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 255:1048–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jusoh AC, Ammori BJ (2012) Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review of comparative studies. Surg Endosc 26:904–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jin T, Altaf K, Xiong JJ, Huang W, Javed MA, Mai G, Liu XB, Hu WM, Xia Q (2012) A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 14:711–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I, Dankelman J, Forgione A, Langø T, Melzer A, Mintz Y, Morales-Conde S, Rhodes M, Satava R, Tang CN, Vilallonga R (2015) European association of endoscopic surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc 29:253–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Butturini G, Damoli I, Crepaz L, Malleo G, Marchegiani G, Daskalaki D, Esposito A, Cingarlini S, Salvia R, Bassi C (2015) A prospective non-randomised single-center study comparing laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy. Surg Endosc

  10. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, Fingerhut A, Yeo C, Izbicki J, Neoptolemos J, Sarr M, Traverso W, Buchler M; International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula Definition (2005) Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery 138:8–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kang CM, Kim DH, Lee WJ (2010) Ten years of experience with resection of left-sided pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: evolution and initial experience to a laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 24:1533–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A, Sato S, Yamakawa Y, Kagawa H, Tomioka H, Mori K (2014). Learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: use of the cumulative sum method. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3855-5

  14. Mohr FW, Falk V, Diegeler A, Walther T, Gummert JF, Bucerius J, Jacobs S, Autschbach R (2001) Computer-enhanced “robotic” cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121:842–853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pietrabissa A, Caramella D, Di Candio G, Carobbi A, Boggi U, Rossi G, Mosca F (1999) Laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonography for staging pancreatic cancer: critical appraisal. World J Surg 23:998–1002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pietrabissa A, Boggi U, Moretto C, Ghilli M, Mosca F (2001) Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Semin Laparosc Surg 8:161–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pietrabissa A, Moretto C, Boggi U, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2004) Laparoscopic distal pancreatomy: are we ready for a standardized technique? Semin Laparosc Surg 11:179–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner V, Bareato U, Panaro F, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E (2007) Robotic distal pancreatectomy and nephrectomy for living donor pancreas–kidney transplantation. Transplantation 84:934–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amorese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fisher WE, Hodges SE, Wu MF, Hilsenbeck SG, Brunicardi FC (2012) Assessment of the learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 203:684–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. M Braga, Ridolfi C, Balzano G, Castoldi R, Pecorelli N, Di Carlo V (2012) Learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a high-volume hospital. Updates Surg 64:179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD, Price R, Richardson W, Guidelines Committee SAGES (2014) SAGES guidelines for the introduction of new technology and techniques. Surg Endosc 28:2257–2271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Crusco S, Jackson T, Advincula A (2014) Comparing the da vinci si single console and dual console in teaching novice surgeons suturing techniques. JSLS. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00218

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Speicher PJ, Nussbaum DP, White RR, Zani S, Mosca PJ, Blazer DG 3rd, Clary BM, Pappas TN, Tyler DS, Perez A (2014) Defining the learning curve for team-based laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4014–4019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical Standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research involving human participants or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Patients were extensively counseled about their disease, the operation that was planned, and the use of robotic assistance. All patients signed an informed consent.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugo Boggi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Napoli, N., Kauffmann, E.F., Perrone, V. et al. The learning curve in robotic distal pancreatectomy. Updates Surg 67, 257–264 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-015-0299-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-015-0299-y

Keywords

Navigation