Regional differences in immune regulation: The immunogenic privilege of corneal allografts

J. Niederkorn,John S. Peeler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02918140

Immunologic Research

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review

Md Rezaul Karim,Amos E Kong,Noor Mohammad,Riddhi N Shah,Bijendra Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67468

2024-08-22

Cureus

Abstract:Robotic surgery has undergone much development and increased use over the years; it has offered many benefits for the operating surgeon compared to the more restrictive nature of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) which is the current standard of care. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have attempted to draw a comparison between the two in terms of the cases required for the learning curve to be achieved. The systematic review was performed at Barts Cancer Institute. A search of Cochrane, PubMed and Embase was made on 15 March 2024. Screening and risk of bias were done by two reviewers. Screening was done via the eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Data collection was done using Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, USA) and information was double-checked by another reviewer and transferred into a tabulated format. Seventeen studies were included, with the learning curve reported in 14 studies. The cases required to achieve the learning curve for multiport robotic cholecystectomy (MRC) ranged from 16 to 134 and for single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC), it ranged from 10 to over 102 cases. Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was from 7 to 200. The improvement in operating times was measured in very different ways and was reported in 10 of the 17 studies. The studies that were available had a high level of heterogeneity making it difficult for comparisons to be made between studies. Several studies included only one surgeon resulting in the sample size of surgeons being too small and vulnerable to bias. As robotic surgery is still relatively novel, higher-quality studies have to be made in order for more conclusive conclusions to be made on the benefits of the learning curve of MRC and SSRC.
Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric-metabolic surgery. Are we still expecting to overcome the learning curve? A propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

Pauline Aeschbacher,Zoe Garoufalia,Peter Rogers,Justin Dourado,Hong Liang,Ana Pena,Samuel Szomstein,Emanuele Lo Menzo,Raul J. Rosenthal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2024.03.017

IF: 3.709

2024-03-27

Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases

Abstract:Background Robotic surgery is becoming increasingly popular in bariatric-metabolic surgery. However, its superiority regarding postoperative outcomes compared to conventional laparoscopy has not been clearly proven. With growing adoption of robotic surgery and improved technologies, benefits should become more evident. Objectives Evaluate readmission and reoperation rates after bariatric-metabolic surgery performed by conventional laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted from 2015-2021. Setting Academic institution. Methods The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP®) was reviewed for primary bariatric operations performed with conventional laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted. Postoperative outcomes were compared in a propensity score-matched sample. Results Of 1,065,272 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 926,437 (87%) were conventional laparoscopic bariatric-metabolic surgeries, which were matched 1:1 with robotic-assisted cases (138,835). Reoperation (OR(95% CI) 1.28(1.20-1.37), p<0.0001), postoperative morbidity (OR(95% CI) 1.19(1.13-1.25), p<0.0001), readmission (OR(95% CI) 1.21(1.17-1.26), p<0.0001), emergency room visits (OR(95% CI) 1.07(1.03-1.10), p 5 days (OR(95% CI) 1.14(1.08-1.21), p<0.0001) at 30 days postoperatively were significantly higher for robotic-assisted cases. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery over robotic-assisted surgery seem more evident in SG and BPD/DS than RYGB. Robotic-assisted cases had a similar mortality rate at 30 days postoperatively compared to conventional laparoscopic cases. Similar results were observed in cases from 2020-2021, except for emergency room visits, which showed no difference between groups. Conclusion Our results show a higher readmission and reoperation rate and higher morbidity at 30 days postoperatively in robotic-assisted bariatric-metabolic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy. Analyzing only cases performed between 2020 and 2021, robotic surgery also does not show superiority over conventional laparoscopy.

surgery
Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs

Rosa M. Jiménez-Rodríguez,Mercedes Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares,José Manuel Díaz-Pavón,M. Luisa Reyes-Díaz,Jorge Manuel Vazquez-Monchul,Ana M. Garcia-Cabrera,Javier Padillo,Fernando De la Portilla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2660-0

IF: 2.8

2016-10-06

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

Abstract:IntroductionRobotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve.Material and methodsA systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: “rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery”.ResultsA total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients.ConclusionRobotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Evaluation of the learning curve for robotic single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy

Lun Wang,Yang Yu,Jinfa Wang,Shixing Li,Tao Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.969418

2022-07-22

Abstract:Background: The robotic surgical system is being used in various bariatric procedures. However, only a few studies with very small sample size are present on robotic single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S). Moreover, to date, the learning curve of robotic SADI-S has been poorly evaluated yet. Objective: This retrospective study aimed to estimate the learning curve of robotic SADI-S. Methods: 102 consecutive patients who underwent robotic SADI-S between March 2020 and December 2021 were included. Textbook outcome standard was performed to comprehensively evaluate clinical outcome of robotic SADI-S. Based on the textbook outcome, we evaluated the learning curve of robotic SADI-S by the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. Results: The mean operative time was 186.13 ± 36.91 min. No conversion to laparotomy or deaths occurred during the study period. The rate of complications was 6.9% (n = 7), of which major complications were identified in 2.9% (n = 3), including 2 gastric leakages and 1 respiratory failure. A total of 60 patients reached the textbook outcome standard. The rate of textbook outcome was positive and was steadily increasing after the number of surgical cases accumulated to the 58th case. Taking the 58th case as the boundary, all the patients were divided into the learning stage group (the first 58 patients) and mastery stage group (the last 44 patients). The rate of complications, proportion of abdominal drainage tubes and postoperative hospital stay were significantly higher in the learning stage group compared with the mastery stage group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of patient demographic data, operative times, reoperations and readmission. Conclusion: Robotic SADI-S is a feasible and reproducible surgical technique with a learning curve of 58 cases.
Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

Kai Siang Chan,Zhong Kai Wang,Nicholas Syn,Brian K P Goh,Brian K.P. Goh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.11.046

IF: 4.348

2021-07-01

Surgery

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background</h3><p>Minimally invasive pancreatic resection has been shown recently in some randomized trials to be superior in selected perioperative outcomes compared with open resection when performed by experienced surgeons. However, minimally invasive pancreatic resection is associated with a long learning curve. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the learning curve of minimally invasive pancreatic resection and define the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane database using a detailed search strategy. Studies that did not describe the learning curve were excluded from the study. Data on the method of learning curve analysis, single surgeon versus institutional learning curve, and outcome measures were extracted and analyzed.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>A total of 32 studies were included in the pooled analysis: 12 on laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, 9 on robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, 12 on laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 3 on robotic distal pancreatectomy. Sample population was comparable between laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (median 63 vs 65). Six of 12 studies and 7 of 9 studies used nonarbitrary methods of analysis in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Operating time was used as the single outcome measure in 4 of 12 studies in laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and 5 of 9 studies in robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Overall, there was no significant difference between the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy 34.1 [95% confidence interval 30.7–37.7] versus robotic pancreatoduodenectomy 36.7 [95% confidence interval 32.9–41.0]; <em>P</em> = .8241) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy 25.3 [95% confidence interval 22.5–28.3] versus robotic distal pancreatectomy 20.7 [95% confidence interval 15.8–26.5]; <em>P</em> = .5997.)</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusion</h3><p>This study provides a detailed summary of existing evidence around the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic resection. There was no significant difference between the learning curve for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and robotic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. These findings were limited by the retrospective nature and heterogeneity of the studies published to date.</p>

surgery
Controversial Role of Robot in Primary and Revisional Bariatric Surgery Procedures: Review of the Literature and Personal Experience

Giovanni Fantola,Enrico Moroni,Matteo Runfola,Emanuele Lai,Stefano Pintus,Pierpaolo Gallucci,Francesco Pennestrì,Marco Raffaelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.916652

IF: 1.8

2022-05-31

Frontiers in Surgery

Abstract:Laparoscopy is the surgical standard of care for bariatric procedures; however, during the last two decades, the robotic approach has gained increasing interest. It is currently considered a safe and effective alternative to laparoscopy. This literature review investigates the role of the robotic approach for primary and revisional bariatric procedures, with the particular aim of comparing this technique with the standard-of-care laparoscopic approach. The feasibility of robotic dissection and suturing could have potential advantages: robotics may prevent the risk of leak and bleeding and other surgical complications, determining potential benefits in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Considering primary procedures, the literature reveals no advantages in robotic versus the laparoscopic approach for adjustable gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy. Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is associated with a longer operative time and a shorter hospital length of stay than laparoscopy. The robotic approach in revisional surgery has been proven to be safe and effective. Despite the longer operative time, the robotic platform could achieve a lower bleeding rate compared with laparoscopy. The surgeon’s selection criteria related to referrals to the robotic approach of difficult-perceived cases could represent a bias. In conclusion, robotic surgery can be considered a safe and effective approach in both primary and revisional bariatric surgery, despite the lack of evidence to support its routine use in primary bariatric surgery. However, in revisional bariatric surgery and in surgical complex procedures, the robotic approach could have potential benefits in terms of surgical complications and learning curves.

surgery
Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience

Leia R. Jones,Maurice J.W. Zwart,Nine de Graaf,Kongyuan Wei,Liu Qu,Jin Jiabin,Fu Ningzhen,Shin-E Wang,Hongbeom Kim,Emanuele F. Kauffmann,Roeland F. de Wilde,I. Quintus Molenaar,Ying Jui Chao,Luca Moraldi,Olivier Saint-Marc,Felix Nickel,Cheng-Ming Peng,Chang Moo Kang,Marcel Machado,Misha D.P. Luyer,Daan J. Lips,Bert A. Bonsing,Thilo Hackert,Yan-Shen Shan,Bas Groot Koerkamp,Yi-Ming Shyr,Baiyong Shen,Ugo Boggi,Rong Liu,Jin-Young Jang,Marc G. Besselink,Mohammad Abu Hilal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.05.044

IF: 4.348

2024-08-22

Surgery

Abstract:Background Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking. Methods An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points. Results Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30–45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes ( P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% ( P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% ( P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% ( n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% ( P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% ( P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10–20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually. Conclusion This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach.

surgery
Attaining Surgical Competency and Its Implications in Surgical Clinical Trial Design: A Systematic Review of the Learning Curve in Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Jenifer Barrie,David G. Jayne,Judy Wright,Carolyn J. Czoski Murray,Fiona J. Collinson,Sue H. Pavitt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3348-0

IF: 4.339

2013-11-12

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery is increasingly used in the treatment of colorectal cancer and more recently robotic assistance has been advocated. However, the learning curve to achieve surgical proficiency in laparoscopic surgery is ill-defined and subject to many influences. The aim of this review was to comprehensively appraise the literature on the learning curve for laparoscopic and robotic colorectal cancer surgery, and to quantify attainment of surgical proficiency and its implications in surgical clinical trial design.MethodsA systematic review using a defined search strategy was performed. Included studies had to state an explicit numerical value of the learning curve evaluated by a single parameter or multiple parameters.ResultsThirty-four studies were included, 28 laparoscopic and 6 robot assisted. Of the laparoscopic studies, nine defined the learning curve on the basis of a single parameter. Nine studies used more than one parameter to define learning, and 11 used a cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. One study used both a multiparameter and CUSUM analysis. The definition of proficiency was subjective, and the number of operations to achieve it ranged from 5 to 310 cases for laparoscopic and 15–30 cases for robotic surgery.ConclusionsThe learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is multifaceted and often ill-defined, with poor descriptions of mentorship/supervision. Further, the quantification to attain proficiency is variable. The use of a single parameter to quantify this is simplistic. Multidimensional assessment is recommended; as part of this, the CUSUM model, which assesses trends in multiple surgical outcomes, is useful and appropriate when assessing the learning curve in a clinical setting.

oncology,surgery
Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

Tzu-Jung Lai,Campbell Roxburgh,Kathleen Anne Boyd,Janet Bouttell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750

IF: 3.006

2024-09-16

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective: To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery. Eligibility criteria: We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes. Data sources: Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023. Data extraction and synthesis: We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method. Results: Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence. Conclusion: Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.
Growth Retardation of Lymphosarcoma Implants in Pyridoxine-Deficient Rats by Testosterone and Cortisone

H. Stoerk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-74-18053

1950-08-01

Abstract:Summary Marked retardation of growth of lymphosarcoma implants was observed in pyridoxine-deficient rats injected with 2 mg daily of cortisone or of methyl testosterone. Survival of pyridoxine-dencient, tumor-bearing rats was prolonged by testosterone and shortened by cortisone. Thanks are due to Mr. T. C. Bielinski and Miss T. Visotsky for valuable assistance.
Long-term follow-up of Hodgkin's disease trial.

G. Canellos,D. Niedzwiecki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200205023461821

IF: 158.5

2002-05-02

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:To the Editor: In 1992, we reported the results of the prospective, randomized Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage Hodgkin's disease. The study compared three regimens: MOPP (mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) for 6 to 8 months, the standard treatment at that time; ABVD, a nonalkylating-agent–containing regimen (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) for 6 to 8 months; and MOPP alternating with ABVD for 12 months.1 Radiation therapy was not administered. ABVD therapy alone for 6 to 8 months resulted in a rate of failure-free survival similar to the rate with a 12-month regimen of . . .
A Comparative Review of Laparoscopic and Robotic Techniques

Angelo Maria Velardi,Pietro Anoldo,Stefania Nigro,Giuseppe Navarra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14020151

IF: 3.5083

2024-01-31

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Abstract:This article examines the evolution of bariatric surgery, with a focus on emerging technologies such as robotics and laparoscopy. In the case of gastric bypass, no significant differences have emerged between the two techniques in terms of hospitalization duration, weight loss, weight regain, or 30-day mortality. Robotic surgery, while requiring more time in the operating room, has been associated with lower rates of bleeding, mortality, transfusions, and infections. In revisional bariatric surgery, the robotic approach has shown fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and a reduced need for conversion to open surgery. In the case of sleeve gastrectomy, robotic procedures have required more time and longer postoperative stays but have recorded lower rates of transfusions and bleeding compared to laparoscopy. However, robotic surgeries have proven to be more costly and potentially more complex in terms of postoperative complications. The review has also addressed the topic of the single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal switch (SADIS), finding comparable results between robotic and laparoscopic techniques, although robotic procedures have required more time in the operating room. Robotic technology has proven to be safe and effective, albeit with slightly longer operative times in some cases.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Learning curve analysis after 500 robotic hepatectomies

Michelle M Dugan,Maria Christodoulou,Sharona B Ross,Tara Pattilachan,Alexander Rosemurgy,Iswanto Sucandy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2024.04.012

Abstract:Background: The robotic platform is growing in popularity for hepatobiliary resections. Although the learning curve for basic competency has been reported, this is the first study to analyze the learning curve to achieve long-term mastery on a decade of experience with more than 500 robotic hepatectomies. Methods: After institutional review board approval, 500 consecutive robotic hepatectomies from 2013 to 2023 were analyzed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis using operative duration was used to determine the learning curves. Results: A total of 500 patients were included in this study: composed of 230 men (46.0 %) and 270 women (54.0 %), aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.6) years, with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 8.0) kg/m2, a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7 (8 ± 3.0), an albumin-bilirubin score of -3.0 (-3.0 ± 0.6), and a Child-Pugh score of 5.0 (5.0 ± 0.7). Operative duration was 235.0 (260.1 ± 131.9) minutes, estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 208.1) mL, tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.5) cm, and 94.0 % of patients achieved R0 margins. The length of hospital stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, with 4.0 % of patient having major complications. Of note, 30-day readmission was 17.0 %, 30-day mortality was 2.0 %, and 90-day mortality was 3.0 %. On CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for minor resection (n = 215) was 75 cases, major resection (n = 154) was 100 cases, and technically challenging minor resection (n = 131) was 57 cases. Gaining more experience in performing surgical procedures resulted in shorter operative duration, lower blood loss, higher R0 resections, and lower major postoperative complications. Conclusion: The minimum number of robotic hepatectomies to overcome the learning curves for mastery of minor, major, and technically challenging minor resections was significant. Our study can help guide surgeons in their early experience to optimize patient safety and outcomes.
Ethical considerations in pathology-intensifying research.

E. Lasser,L. Silverman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.32.7.577

IF: 16.358

1977-07-01

American Psychologist

Abstract:
Experimental model of toxin-induced subclinical mastitis and its effect on disruption of follicular function in cows.

O. Furman,G. Leitner,Z. Roth,Y. Lavon,S. Jacoby,D. Wolfenson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2014.08.002

IF: 2.923

2014-11-01

Theriogenology

Abstract:
Learning curves in robot-assisted minimally invasive liver surgery at a high-volume center in Denmark: Report of the first 100 patients and review of literature

Daisuke Fukumori,Christoph Tschuor,Luit Penninga,Jens Hillingsø,Lars Bo Svendsen,Peter Nørgaard Larsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969221146003

2023-02-02

Scandinavian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, Ahead of Print. Background and objective:Minimally invasive liver surgery is evolving worldwide, and robot-assisted liver surgery (RLS) can deliver obvious benefits for patients. However, so far no large case series have documented the learning curve for RLS.Methods:We conducted a retrospective study for robotic liver surgery (RLS) from June 2019 to June 2022 where 100 patients underwent RLS by the same surgical team. Patients' variables, short-term follow-up, and the learning curve were analyzed. A review of the literature describing the learning curve in RLS was also conducted.Results:Mean patient age was 63.1 years. The median operating time was 246 min and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. Thirty-two patients underwent subsegmentectomy, 18 monosegmentectomies, 25 bisegmentectomies, and 25 major hepatectomies. One patient (1.0%) required conversion to open surgery. Five patients (5%) experienced postoperative major complications, and no mortalities occurred. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days. R0 resection was achieved in 93.4% of the malignant cases. The learning curve consisted of three stages; there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rate, or complication rate among the three groups. Postoperative complications were similar in each group despite an increase in surgical difficulty scores. The learning effect was highlighted by significantly shorter hospital stays in cohorts I, II, and III, respectively. The included systematic review suggested that the learning curve for RLS is similar to, or shorter, than that of laparoscopic liver surgery.Conclusions:In our experience, RLS has achieved good clinical results, albeit in the short term. Standardization of training leads to increasing proficiency in RLS with reduced blood loss and low complication rates even in more advanced liver resections. Our study suggests that a minimum of 30 low-to-moderate difficulty robotic procedures should be performed before proceeding to more difficult resections.

surgery
Determining the learning curve of minimally invasive antireflux surgery: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Jonathan Sivakumar,Qianyu Chen,Nicholas Bull,Michael W Hii,Yahya Al-Habbal,Cuong Phu Duong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doae073

2024-09-08

Abstract:The rapid uptake of minimally invasive antireflux surgery has led to interest in learning curves for this procedure. This study ascertains the learning curve in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted antireflux surgery. A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in minimally invasive fundoplication with or without hiatal hernia repair was performed using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. A meta-regression analysis was undertaken to identify the number of cases to achieve surgical proficiency, and a meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes between cases that were undertaken during a surgeon's learning phase and experienced phase. Twenty-five studies met the eligibility criteria. A meta-regression analysis was performed to quantitatively investigate the trend of number of cases required to achieve surgical proficiency from 1996 to present day. Using a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model, the predicted learning curve for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted antireflux surgery was found to be 24.7 and 31.1 cases, respectively. The meta-analysis determined that surgeons in their learning phase may experience a moderately increased rate of conversion to open procedure (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28, 4.64), as well as a slightly increased rate of intraoperative complications (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.08, 2.38), postoperative complications (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.36, 2.87), and needing reintervention (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.16, 2.34). This study provides an insight into the expected caseload to be competent in performing antireflux surgery. The discrepancy between outcomes during and after the learning curve for antireflux surgery suggests a need for close proctorship for learning surgeons.
Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

Ali Ahmad,Hadley D Freeman,Sarah D Corn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09809-3

Abstract:Background: Robotic hepatectomy has gained increasing acceptance across the US. Although the robotic approach offers significant technical advantages, it is still bound by the individual surgeon's learning curve. Proficiency in this approach should theoretically lead to improved peri-operative outcomes. Methods: Between 2017 and 2020, data on 148 consecutive robotic hepatectomies performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively analyzed. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, intraoperative blood loss (EBL) and operative time were used to assess learning curves for robotic major (n = 58) and minor (n = 90) hepatectomy patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared in regards with proficiency. Results: Proficiency for robotic major and minor hepatectomy was achieved after 22 cases and 34 cases, respectively. No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumor characteristics. For robotic major hepatectomy, when compared to early experience, proficiency was associated with a significant improvement in mean EBL (242 mL vs 118 mL, p = 0.0004), operative time (330 min vs 247 min, p = 0.0002), decreased overall complication rate (23% vs 3%, p = 0.039), and length of hospital stay (5.7 days vs 4.1 days, p = 0.004). No difference in conversion rate, mortality or 30 day readmission was seen. For robotic minor hepatectomy, proficiency was associated with significantly decreased mean EBL (115 mL vs 54 mL, p = 0.005), operative time (168 vs 125 min, p = 0.014), and length of hospital stay (2.8 days vs 2.1 days, p = 0.021). No difference was observed in conversion rate, overall complications, mortality or 30 day readmission. Conclusion: In the modern era, robotic hepatectomy offers a safe approach with excellent perioperative outcomes. Post learning curve proficiency is associated with significant improvements in perioperative outcomes in both major and minor hepatectomy. Results from our study can serve as a guide to surgeons and programs looking to adopt this technique.
Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Carolina Vanetta,Nicolás H Dreifuss,Francisco Schlottmann,Alberto Mangano,Antonio Cubisino,Valentina Valle,Carolina Baz,Francesco M Bianco,Chandra Hassan,Antonio Gangemi,Mario A Masrur,Nicolás H. Dreifuss,Francesco M. Bianco,Mario A. Masrur

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071820

IF: 3.9

2022-03-25

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in achieving significant weight loss and remission of obesity-related comorbidities. However, a percentage of patients fail to lose enough weight, regain weight, or experience postoperative complications, requiring additional interventions. Revisional bariatric surgeries (RBS) involve the wide spectrum of procedures that aim to treat complications of the index operation or achieve further weight loss. These are technically challenging procedures due to adhesions of the internal organs, reduced working space, and a distorted anatomy. Indications, timing, and type of operation for RBS are not standardized, and there is no consensus on the best surgical approach. Some authors claim a robotic platform could be advantageous in these types of procedures that are performed in reduced, deep operating fields, or those requiring precision and accuracy. This review examines the most current and representative literature on the outcomes of robot-assisted RBS. Included studies demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach for RBS. However, long operative times and high costs remain major drawbacks of the device. Finally, if we consider that many centers have not yet completed the learning curve for robot-assisted RBS, the potential for improved outcomes seems promising.

medicine, general & internal
Selection of Robotic Bariatric Surgery Candidates: a Nationwide Analysis

Ahmed M Al-Mazrou,Omar Bellorin,Vikrom Dhar,Gregory Dakin,Cheguevara Afaneh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-023-05595-y

Abstract:Introduction: This study aims to identify risk factors associated with 30-day major complications, readmission, and delayed discharge for patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery. Methods: From the metabolic and bariatric surgery and accreditation quality improvement program (2015-2018) datasets, adult patients who underwent elective robotic bariatric operations were included. Predictors for 30-day major complications, readmission, and delayed discharge (hospital stay ≥ 3 days) were identified using univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: Major complications in patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery were associated with both pre-operative and intraoperative factors including pre-existing cardiac morbidity (OR = 1.41, CI = [1.09-1.82]), gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD] (OR = 1.23, CI = [1.11-1.38]), pulmonary embolism (OR = 1.51, CI = [1.02-2.22]), prior bariatric surgery (OR = 1.66, CI = [1.43-1.94]), increased operating time (OR = 1.003, CI = [1.002-1.004]), gastric bypass or duodenal switch (OR = 1.58, CI = [1.40-1.79]), and intraoperative drain placement (OR = 1.28, CI = [1.11-1.47]). With regard to 30-day readmission, non-white race (OR = 1.25, CI = [1.14-1.39]), preoperative hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.16, CI = [1.14-1.38]), DVT (OR = 1.48, CI = [1.10-1.99]), therapeutic anticoagulation (OR = 1.48, CI = [1.16-1.89]), limited ambulation (OR = 1.33, CI = [1.01-1.74]), and dialysis (OR = 2.14, CI = [1.13-4.09]) were significantly associated factors. Age ≥ 65 (OR = 1.18, CI = [1.04-1.34]), female gender (OR = 1.21, CI = [1.10-1.32]), hypertension (OR = 1.08, CI = [1.01-1.15]), renal insufficiency (OR = 2.32, CI = [1.69-3.17]), COPD (OR = 1.49, CI = [1.23-1.82]), sleep apnea (OR = 1.10, CI = [1.03-1.18]), oxygen dependence (OR = 1.47, CI = [1.10-2.0]), steroid use (OR = 1.26, CI = [1.02-1.55]), IVC filter (OR = 1.52, CI = [1.15-2.0]), and BMI ≥ 40 (OR = 1.12, CI = [1.04-1.21]) were risk factors associated with delayed discharge. Conclusion: When selecting patients for bariatric surgery, surgeons early in their learning curve for utilizing robotics should avoid individuals with pre-existing cardiac or renal morbidities, venous thromboembolism, and limited functional status. Patients who have had previous bariatric surgery or require technically demanding operations are at higher risk for complications. An evidence-based approach in selecting bariatric candidates may potentially minimize the overall costs associated with adopting the technology.

Regional differences in immune regulation: The immunogenic privilege of corneal allografts

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric-metabolic surgery. Are we still expecting to overcome the learning curve? A propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP database.

Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs

Evaluation of the learning curve for robotic single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy

Learning curve of laparoscopic and robotic pancreas resections: a systematic review

Controversial Role of Robot in Primary and Revisional Bariatric Surgery Procedures: Review of the Literature and Personal Experience

Learning curve stratified outcomes after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy: International multicenter experience

Attaining Surgical Competency and Its Implications in Surgical Clinical Trial Design: A Systematic Review of the Learning Curve in Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

Growth Retardation of Lymphosarcoma Implants in Pyridoxine-Deficient Rats by Testosterone and Cortisone

Long-term follow-up of Hodgkin's disease trial.

A Comparative Review of Laparoscopic and Robotic Techniques

Learning curve analysis after 500 robotic hepatectomies

Ethical considerations in pathology-intensifying research.

Experimental model of toxin-induced subclinical mastitis and its effect on disruption of follicular function in cows.

Learning curves in robot-assisted minimally invasive liver surgery at a high-volume center in Denmark: Report of the first 100 patients and review of literature

Determining the learning curve of minimally invasive antireflux surgery: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

Current Status of Robot-Assisted Revisional Bariatric Surgery

Selection of Robotic Bariatric Surgery Candidates: a Nationwide Analysis