» Articles » PMID: 37600094

Learning Curves in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Pancreatic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Proposal of a Standardization

Overview
Journal Ann Surg Open
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2023 Aug 21
PMID 37600094
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).

Background: Formal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.

Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.

Results: Out of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD ( = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP ( = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, < 0.001).

Conclusions: This study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.

Citing Articles

Perioperative outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Armengol-Garcia C, Blandin-Alvarez V, Sharma E, Salinas-Ruiz L, Gonzalez-Mendez M, Monteiro Dos Santos M Surg Endosc. 2025; 39(3):1462-1472.

PMID: 39880981 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11515-1.


Minimally Invasive Surgery Deserts: Is There a Role for Robotic Assisted Surgery?.

Mitzman B, Johnson S, Lichtveld M, Culbertson R, Fong Z JSLS. 2025; 28(3).

PMID: 39801727 PMC: 11723336. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2024.00039.


Network Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy.

Joseph N, Varghese C, Lucocq J, McGuinness M, Tingle S, Marchegiani G Ann Surg Open. 2024; 5(4):e507.

PMID: 39711682 PMC: 11661753. DOI: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000507.


Current landscape of minimally invasive pancreatectomy for neoplasms: A retrospective cohort study.

Ngongoni R, Mlambo B, Shih I, Li Y, Wren S World J Surg. 2024; 49(1):241-252.

PMID: 39578686 PMC: 11711114. DOI: 10.1002/wjs.12408.


Learning Curve Analysis for Robotic-assisted Harvest of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap.

Moreira A, Chen B, Bailey E, Nelson W, Murariu D Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024; 12(10):e6242.

PMID: 39399806 PMC: 11469914. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006242.


References
1.
Pernar L, Robertson F, Tavakkoli A, Sheu E, Brooks D, Smink D . An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31(11):4583-4596. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5520-2. View

2.
de Rooij T, Cipriani F, Rawashdeh M, van Dieren S, Barbaro S, Abuawwad M . Single-Surgeon Learning Curve in 111 Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomies: Does Operative Time Tell the Whole Story?. J Am Coll Surg. 2017; 224(5):826-832.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.01.023. View

3.
Kennedy G, McMillan M, Sprys M, Bassi C, Greig P, Hansen P . The influence of fellowship training on the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2016; 18(12):965-978. PMC: 5144550. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.09.008. View

4.
Strobel O, Brangs S, Hinz U, Pausch T, Huttner F, Diener M . Incidence, risk factors and clinical implications of chyle leak after pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg. 2016; 104(1):108-117. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10316. View

5.
Zureikat A, Beane J, Zenati M, Al Abbas A, Boone B, Moser A . 500 Minimally Invasive Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomies: One Decade of Optimizing Performance. Ann Surg. 2019; 273(5):966-972. PMC: 7871451. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003550. View