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

Kai Siang Chan, Aung Myint Oo
{"title":"Exploring the learning curve in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review.","authors":"Kai Siang Chan,&nbsp;Aung Myint Oo","doi":"10.1093/dote/doad008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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. NLC 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 NLC. 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 NLC 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. NLC was significantly lower for total RAMIE compared to total VAMIE (incidence rate ratio: 0.52, P = 0.032). Studies reporting NLC in MIE are heterogeneous. Further studies should clearly define prior surgical experiences and assess long-term oncological outcomes using non-arbitrary analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":11255,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":"36 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doad008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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. NLC 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 NLC. 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 NLC 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. NLC was significantly lower for total RAMIE compared to total VAMIE (incidence rate ratio: 0.52, P = 0.032). Studies reporting NLC in MIE are heterogeneous. Further studies should clearly define prior surgical experiences and assess long-term oncological outcomes using non-arbitrary analysis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索微创食管切除术的学习曲线:一项系统综述。
微创食管切除术(MIE)已被证明优于开放式食管切除术,其发病率、死亡率和淋巴结(LN)采收率均较低。然而,MIE在技术上具有挑战性。本研究旨在对克服学习曲线(LC)所需的案例数量进行汇总分析,即MIE中的NLC。PubMed, Embase, Scopus和Cochrane图书馆系统地检索了从成立到2022年6月的文章。纳入标准是在视频辅助MIE (VAMIE)和/或机器人辅助MIE (RAMIE)中报道LC的文章。泊松均值(95%置信区间[CI])用于测定NLC。采用负二项回归进行比较分析。共有41篇文章,45个数据集(n = 7755例患者)。大多数肿瘤位于食管下部或胃食管交界处(66.7%,n = 3962/5939)。VAMIE上大多数数据集(n = 16/26, 61.5%)采用任意分析,RAMIE上大多数数据集(n = 14/19, 73.7%)采用累积和控制图分析。最常见的结果是总手术时间(n = 30/45)和吻合口漏(n = 28/45)。24个数据集(53.3%)报告了LN的收获情况。杂交VAMIE、全VAMIE、杂交RAMIE和全RAMIE的总体NLC分别为34.6 (95% CI: 30.4-39.2)、68.5 (95% CI: 64.9-72.4)、27.5 (95% CI: 24.3-30.9)和35.9 (95% CI: 32.1-40.2)。总RAMIE的NLC明显低于总VAMIE(发病率比:0.52,P = 0.032)。在MIE中报道NLC的研究是异质的。进一步的研究应明确定义既往手术经验,并使用非任意分析评估长期肿瘤预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of perioperative oral swallowing function with post-esophagectomy outcomes and nutritional statuses in patients with esophageal cancer. Safety and efficacy of EsoFLIP dilation in patients with esophageal dysmotility: a systematic review. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings that do no not explain dysphagia are associated with underutilization of high-resolution manometry. Risk of metastasis among patients diagnosed with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic follow-up. Evaluation of indocyanine green tracheobronchial fluorescence (ICG-TBF) via nebulization during minimally invasive esophagectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1