4.5 Review

Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery

Journal

BJS OPEN
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 27-44

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50235

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ethicon, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Increased 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. Methods: MEDLINE, 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. Results: Searches 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. Conclusion: Learning 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available