4.6 Article

The Learning Curve for Robotic McKeown Esophagectomy in Patients With Esophageal Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 105, 期 4, 页码 1024-1030

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.11.058

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy is a promising but technically demanding procedure; thus, a learning curve should be defined to guide training and allow implementation of this technique. Methods. This study retrospectively reviewed the prospectively collected data of 72 consecutive patients under-going robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy by a single surgical team experienced in open and thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. The cumulative sum method was used to analyze the learning curve. Patients were divided into two groups in chronological order, defining the surgeon's early (group 1: the first 26 patients) and late experience (group 2: the next 46 patients). Demographic data, intraoperative characteristics, and short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. Cumulative sum plots revealed decreasing thoracic and abdominal docking time, thoracic and abdominal console time, and total surgical time after patient 9, 16, 26, 14, and 26, respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was greater in group 2 than in group 1 (22.6 +/- 8.2 vs 17.4 +/- 6.7, p = 0.008). No other clinic or pathologic characteristics were observed as significantly different. Conclusions. For a surgeon experienced in open and thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy, experience of 26 cases is required to gain early proficiency of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy. A learning curve for robot-assisted esophagus dissection would require operations on 26 patients and stomach mobilization would require operations on 14 patients. For the tableside assistant, experience of at least nine cases is needed to achieve an optimal technical level for thoracic docking and 16 cases for abdominal docking. (c) 2018 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据