The learning curve of the robotic-assisted lobectomy-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ashley R Wilson-Smith, Naomi Anning, Benjamin Muston, Aditya Eranki, Michael L Williams, Christian J Wilson-Smith, Diego G Rivas, Tristan D Yan
Author Information
  1. Ashley R Wilson-Smith: The Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Center, Sydney, Australia.
  2. Naomi Anning: Department of Vascular Surgery, The John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, Australia.
  3. Benjamin Muston: The Collaborative Research Group (CORE), Sydney, Australia.
  4. Aditya Eranki: The St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
  5. Michael L Williams: The Collaborative Research Group (CORE), Sydney, Australia.
  6. Christian J Wilson-Smith: The University of New South Wales Medical School, Sydney, Australia.
  7. Diego G Rivas: Department of Thoracic Surgery and Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery Unit (UCTMI), Coruña University Hospital, A Coruña, Spain.
  8. Tristan D Yan: The Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Center, Sydney, Australia.

Abstract

Background: Early studies have illustrated the robotic lobectomy to be safe, oncologically effective, and economically feasible as a therapeutic modality in the treatment of thoracic malignancies. The 'challenging' learning curve seemingly associated with the robotic approach, however, continues to be an often-cited factor to its ongoing uptake, with the overwhelming volume of these surgeries being performed in centers of excellence where extensive experience with minimal access surgery is the norm. An exact quantification of this learning curve challenge, however, has not been made, begging the question of whether this is an outdated assumption, versus fact. This systematic review and meta-analysis sort to clarify the learning curve for robotic-assisted lobectomy based on the existing literature.
Methods: An electronic search of four databases was performed to identify relevant studies outlining the learning curve of robotic lobectomy. The primary endpoint was a clear definition of operator learning (e.g., cumulative sum chart, linear regression, outcome-specific analysis, etc.) which could be subsequently aggregated or reported. Secondary endpoints of interest included post-operative outcomes and complication rates. A meta-analysis using a random effects model of proportions or means was applied, as appropriate.
Results: The search strategy identified twenty-two studies relevant for inclusion. A total of 3,246 patients (30% male) receiving robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) were identified. The mean age of the cohort was 65.3±5.0 years. Mean operative, console and dock time was 190.5±53.8, 125.8±33.9 and 10.2±4.0 minutes, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 6.1±4.6 days. Technical proficiency with the robotic-assisted lobectomy was achieved at a mean of 25.3±12.6 cases.
Conclusions: The robotic-assisted lobectomy has been illustrated to have a reasonable learning curve profile based on the existing literature. Current evidence on the oncologic efficacy and purported benefits of the robotic approach will be bolstered by the results of upcoming randomized trials, which will be critical in supporting RATS uptake.

Keywords

References

  1. Surg Endosc. 2016 Feb;30(2):676-683 [PMID: 26091996]
  2. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Sep;10(Suppl 26):S3184-S3185 [PMID: 30370108]
  3. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  4. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Aug;114(2):434-441 [PMID: 34400135]
  5. Surgery. 2019 Feb;165(2):450-454 [PMID: 30061043]
  6. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135 [PMID: 25524443]
  7. J Robot Surg. 2022 Jun 22;: [PMID: 35732918]
  8. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2021 May;83(2):227-237 [PMID: 34239171]
  9. Int J Med Robot. 2012 Dec;8(4):448-52 [PMID: 22991294]
  10. BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919 [PMID: 27733354]
  11. Innovations (Phila). 2011 Nov;6(6):355-60 [PMID: 22436769]
  12. Innovations (Phila). 2018 Sep/Oct;13(5):321-327 [PMID: 30407925]
  13. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Feb;147(2):724-9 [PMID: 24252937]
  14. Am Surg. 2013 Oct;79(10):1075-80 [PMID: 24160802]
  15. Innovations (Phila). 2020 May/Jun;15(3):235-242 [PMID: 32228219]
  16. Thorac Cancer. 2021 May;12(9):1431-1440 [PMID: 33709571]
  17. Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg. 2021 Oct 20;29(4):527-535 [PMID: 35096451]
  18. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 01;12:9 [PMID: 22297116]
  19. Ann Surg. 2022 Feb 1;275(2):295-302 [PMID: 33938492]
  20. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Mar;36(2):142-147 [PMID: 33061113]
  21. Innovations (Phila). 2019 Jun;14(3):263-271 [PMID: 31050320]
  22. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2021;27:100362 [PMID: 33838571]
  23. J Thorac Dis. 2020 Mar;12(3):741-748 [PMID: 32274140]
  24. J Robot Surg. 2019 Oct;13(5):663-669 [PMID: 30560496]
  25. J Thorac Dis. 2019 Jun;11(6):2431-2437 [PMID: 31372280]
  26. Innovations (Phila). 2014 Jan-Feb;9(1):10-5 [PMID: 24553055]
  27. BJS Open. 2020 Feb;4(1):27-44 [PMID: 32011823]
  28. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Mar;8(2):226-232 [PMID: 31032206]
  29. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2021 Jun-Jul;99(6):421-427 [PMID: 34099400]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0learningcurvelobectomyroboticrobotic-assistedstudiesthoracicsurgerymeta-analysis6illustratedapproachhoweveruptakeperformedsystematicreviewbasedexistingliteraturesearchrelevantidentifiedRATSmean0willBackground:Earlysafeoncologicallyeffectiveeconomicallyfeasibletherapeuticmodalitytreatmentmalignancies'challenging'seeminglyassociatedcontinuesoften-citedfactorongoingoverwhelmingvolumesurgeriescentersexcellenceextensiveexperienceminimalaccessnormexactquantificationchallengemadebeggingquestionwhetheroutdatedassumptionversusfactsortclarifyMethods:electronicfourdatabasesidentifyoutliningprimaryendpointcleardefinitionoperatoregcumulativesumchartlinearregressionoutcome-specificanalysisetcsubsequentlyaggregatedreportedSecondaryendpointsinterestincludedpost-operativeoutcomescomplicationratesusingrandomeffectsmodelproportionsmeansappliedappropriateResults:strategytwenty-twoinclusiontotal3246patients30%malereceivingagecohort653±5yearsMeanoperativeconsoledocktime1905±5381258±339102±4minutesrespectivelyLengthhospitalstay1±4daysTechnicalproficiencyachieved253±12casesConclusions:reasonableprofileCurrentevidenceoncologicefficacypurportedbenefitsbolsteredresultsupcomingrandomizedtrialscriticalsupportinglobectomy-aRobotic

Similar Articles

Cited By