Exploring the learning curve in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review

被引:13
|
作者
Chan, Kai Siang [1 ,4 ]
Oo, Aung Myint [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Tan Tock Seng Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Natl Univ Singapore, Yong Loo Lin Sch Med, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Nanyang Technol Univ, Lee Kong Chian Sch Med, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Tan Tock Seng Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore 308433, Singapore
关键词
esophagectomy; learning curve; proficiency; robot assisted; thoracoscopic; RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE; SQUAMOUS-CELL CARCINOMA; IVOR LEWIS; THORACOSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY; MCKEOWN ESOPHAGECTOMY; PRONE POSITION; 2-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY; RADICAL ESOPHAGECTOMY; ROBOTIC ESOPHAGECTOMY; SINGLE-CENTER;
D O I
10.1093/dote/doad008
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been shown to be superior to open esophagectomy with reduced morbidity, mortality, and comparable lymph node (LN) harvest. However, MIE is technically challenging. This study aims to perform a pooled analysis on the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve (LC), i.e. N-LC in MIE. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles from inception to June 2022. Inclusion criteria were articles that reported LC in video-assisted MIE (VAMIE) and/or robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE). Poisson means (95% confidence interval [CI]) was used to determine N-LC. Negative binomial regression was used for comparative analysis. There were 41 articles with 45 data sets (n = 7755 patients). The majority of tumors were located in the lower esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (66.7%, n = 3962/5939). The majority of data sets on VAMIE (n = 16/26, 61.5%) used arbitrary analysis, while the majority of data sets (n = 14/19, 73.7%) on RAMIE used cumulative sum control chart analysis. The most common outcomes reported were overall operating time (n = 30/45) and anastomotic leak (n = 28/45). Twenty-four data sets (53.3%) reported on LN harvest. The overall N-LC was 34.6 (95% CI: 30.4-39.2), 68.5 (95% CI: 64.9-72.4), 27.5 (95% CI: 24.3-30.9), and 35.9 (95% CI: 32.1-40.2) for hybrid VAMIE, total VAMIE, hybrid RAMIE, and total RAMIE, respectively. N-LC was significantly lower for total RAMIE compared to total VAMIE (incidence rate ratio: 0.52, P = 0.032). Studies reporting N-LC in MIE are heterogeneous. Further studies should clearly define prior surgical experiences and assess long-term oncological outcomes using non-arbitrary analysis.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Assessment of Quality Outcomes and Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy
    Yang, Yang
    Li, Bin
    Hua, Rong
    Zhang, Xiaobin
    Jiang, Haoyao
    Sun, Yifeng
    Veronesi, Giulia
    Ricciardi, Sara
    Casiraghi, Monica
    Durand, Marion
    Caso, Raul
    Sarkaria, Inderpal S.
    Li, ZhiGang
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (02) : 676 - 684
  • [32] Assessment of Quality Outcomes and Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy
    Yang Yang
    Bin Li
    Rong Hua
    Xiaobin Zhang
    Haoyao Jiang
    Yifeng Sun
    Giulia Veronesi
    Sara Ricciardi
    Monica Casiraghi
    Marion Durand
    Raul Caso
    Inderpal S. Sarkaria
    ZhiGang Li
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2021, 28 : 676 - 684
  • [33] Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy
    Xue, Mengchao
    Liu, Junjie
    Lu, Ming
    Zhang, Huiying
    Liu, Wen
    Tian, Hui
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2024, 13
  • [34] Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: A meta-analysis and systematic review
    Jin, Dacheng
    Yao, Liang
    Yu, Jun
    Liu, Rong
    Guo, Tiankang
    Yang, Kehu
    Gou, Yunjiu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2019, 15 (03):
  • [35] Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature
    Verhage, R. J. J.
    Hazebroek, E. J.
    Boone, J.
    Van Hillegersberg, R.
    MINERVA CHIRURGICA, 2009, 64 (02) : 135 - 146
  • [36] McKeown or Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Jingpu
    Hu, Jingfeng
    Zhu, Dengyan
    Wang, Kankan
    Gao, Chunzhi
    Shan, Tingting
    Yang, Yang
    TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2020, 9 (03) : 1518 - +
  • [37] Minimally invasive esophagectomy
    Theodore Liakakos
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2011, 25 : 981 - 982
  • [38] Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Biere, S. S. A. Y.
    Cuesta, M. A.
    Van Der Peet, D. L.
    MINERVA CHIRURGICA, 2009, 64 (02) : 121 - 133
  • [39] Minimally invasive esophagectomy
    Leibman, S
    Smithers, BM
    Gotley, DC
    Martin, I
    Thomas, J
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2006, 20 (03): : 428 - 433
  • [40] Minimally invasive esophagectomy
    Luketich, JD
    Schauer, PR
    Christie, NA
    Weigel, TL
    Raja, S
    Fernando, HC
    Keenan, RJ
    Nguyen, NT
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2000, 70 (03): : 906 - 911