Dataset Information

"Idealized" vs. "True" learning curves: the case of laparoscopic liver resection.

ABSTRACT: Learning curves are believed to resemble an "idealized" model, in which continuous improvement occurs until a plateau is reached. We hypothesized that this "idealized" model would not adequately describe the learning process for a complex surgical technique, specifically laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).We analyzed the first 150 LLRs performed by a surgeon with expertise in hepatobiliary/laparoscopic surgery but with no previous LLR experience. We divided the procedures performed in 5 consecutive groups of 30 procedures, then compared groups in terms of complications, operative time, length of stay, and estimated blood loss.We observed an increase in operative complexity (3.3% major operations in Group 1 vs. 23.3% in Group 5, p = 0.05). Complications decreased from Group 1 to Group 2 (20%-3%), but increased again as more complex procedures were performed (3% in Group 2-13% in Group 5). Similar improvement/regression patterns were observed for operative time and EBL.The "true" learning curve for LLR is more appropriately described as alternating periods of improvement and regression until mastery is achieved. Surgeons should understand the true learning curves of procedures they perform, recognizing and mitigating the increased risk they assume by taking on more complex procedures.

SUBMITTER: Villani V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4913127 | biostudies-other | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Idealized" vs. "True" learning curves: the case of laparoscopic liver resection.

Villani Vincenzo V Bohnen Jordan D JD Torabi Radbeh R Sabbatino Francesco F Chang David C DC Ferrone Cristina R CR

HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 20160426 6

<h4>Background</h4>Learning curves are believed to resemble an "idealized" model, in which continuous improvement occurs until a plateau is reached. We hypothesized that this "idealized" model would not adequately describe the learning process for a complex surgical technique, specifically laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).<h4>Methods</h4>We analyzed the first 150 LLRs performed by a surgeon with expertise in hepatobiliary/laparoscopic surgery but with no previous LLR experience. We divided the ...[more]

PMID: 27317954

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.ResultsOf 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Project description:ImportanceSurgery represents the mainstay treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Indications for the laparoscopic approach in this setting have been widened and there is a need to confirm the benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in patients with complex disease states.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, focusing on the characteristics of modern MILS and therefore overcoming possible selection bias related to different policies for patients' eligibility for MILS over time.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 885 resections performed for liver metastases from colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2017, at the Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit of San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy, comprising 187 laparoscopic and 698 open resections. Procedures performed using the MILS approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of more than 30% were considered and were matched by propensity scores (ratio of 1:4) to procedures performed using the open approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of less than 30%.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was short-term outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, functional recovery, and interval between surgery and adjuvant treatments; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes.ResultsAmong this cohort (104 patients in the MILS group; 46 women and 58 men; median age, 62 years [range, 35-81 years]; and 412 patients in the open group; 181 women and 231 men; median age, 60 years [range, 37-80 years]), primary end-point data showed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent open resections compared with those who underwent MILS (94 [22.8%] vs 21 [20.2%]; P = .04). Patients in the MILS group had fewer major complications (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V) compared with patients in the open group (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V; 7 [6.7%] vs 35 [8.5%]; P = .03) as well as shorter lengths of stay (median [range] duration, 3 [2-35] vs 5 [4-37] days; P = .02). Oncologic results were not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the results of the propensity score matching analysis between modern laparoscopic surgery and previous open surgery appear to confer more comparable cohorts for complexity, further supporting the advantages of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. The increase in use that laparoscopy has experienced appears to be based on increased feasibility, widening of eligibility criteria for patients, enhanced clinical effectiveness, and oncologic outcomes. All these elements together suggest that up to 70% of patients appear to be candidates for this minimally invasive surgical approach in high-volume centers.

Dataset Information

"Idealized" vs. "True" learning curves: the case of laparoscopic liver resection.

Publications

"Idealized" vs. "True" learning curves: the case of laparoscopic liver resection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets