Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 31;12(1):1-8.
doi: 10.21037/acs-2022-urats-14. Epub 2023 Jan 14.

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

Affiliations

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

Ashley R Wilson-Smith et al. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. .

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quantification of this learning curve challenge, however, has not been made, begging the question of whether this is an outdated assumption, versus fact.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: Robotic thoracic surgery; learning curve; robotic lobectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reported learning curve data across studies. *, studies reported learning curve outcomes in ‘phases’ not amenable to statistical aggregation. RATS, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Soomro NA, Hashimoto DA, Porteous AJ, et al. Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery. BJS Open 2020;4:27-44. 10.1002/bjs5.50235 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim MP. Robotic lobectomy leads to excellent survival in lung cancer patients. J Thorac Dis 2018;10:S3184-5. 10.21037/jtd.2018.07.123 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jin R, Zheng Y, Yuan Y, et al. Robotic-assisted Versus Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy: Short-term Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial (RVlob Trial). Ann Surg 2022;275:295-302. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004922 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372: n71.10.1136/bmj.n71 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Health Economics. Quality Appraisal of Case Series Study Tool. Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, 2016.