The Learning Curve of Robotic Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the learning curve of robotic hysterectomy using objective, patient-centered outcomes and analytic methods proposed in the literature. METHODS: All cases of robotic hysterectomy performed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009, were collected. Experience was analyzed in 6-month periods. Operative time, complications, and length of stay longer than 1 day were compared between periods for significant change. For learning curve analysis, standard and risk-adjusted cumulative summation charting was used for the two most experienced robotic surgeons (A and B). Outcomes of interest were intraoperative complications and intraoperative or postoperative complications within 6 weeks. Proficiency was defined as the point at which each surgeon's curve crossed H0 based on complication rates of abdominal hysterectomy. Cumulative summation parameters were p0=5.7% and p1=11.4% for outcome 1 and p0=36.0% and p1=50% for outcome 2. RESULTS: In 325 cases, operative time decreased significantly from 3.5 to 2.7 hours during the 3-year period. The proportion of patients with length of stay longer than 1 day decreased significantly from 49.2% to 14.7%. Complications did not decrease significantly. The average number of procedures to cross H0 was 91 for outcome 1 and 44 for outcome 2. Observed cumulative summation curves of surgeons A and B differed from the average number of attempts calculated from p0 and p1. CONCLUSIONS: Operative time and length of stay decrease with 36 months of experience with robotic hysterectomy, whereas complications may not. Cumulative summation analysis provides an objective, individualized tool to evaluate surgical proficiency and suggests this occurs after performing approximately 91 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III

[1]  W. J. Harris,et al.  Early complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. , 1995, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[2]  A. Weaver,et al.  Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[3]  E. Mascha,et al.  Learning Curves for Bag-and-mask Ventilation and Orotracheal Intubation: An Application of the Cumulative Sum Method , 2010, Anesthesiology.

[4]  G. Fried,et al.  Defining the learning curve in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a CUSUM analysis , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[5]  W. Boyd,et al.  Analysis of the learning curve in telerobotic, beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting: a 90 patient experience. , 2003, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  D. Barlow,et al.  Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  L. Stitt,et al.  The Learning Curve of an Academic Cardiac Surgeon: Use of the CUSUM Method , 1985, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[8]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[9]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[10]  D. Rattner,et al.  Operative time is a poor surrogate for the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery , 2007, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  H. Ory,et al.  Complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy among women of reproductive age in the United States. The Collaborative Review of Sterilization. , 1982, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  P. Gehrig,et al.  Perioperative Outcomes of Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy for Benign Cases With Complex Pathology , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  Sarfraz Ahmad,et al.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[15]  P. Anderson,et al.  Robotic‐assisted gynaecological surgery—establishing training criteria; minimizing operative time and blood loss , 2008, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[16]  N. Lambrou,et al.  A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[17]  Usha Seshadri-Kreaden,et al.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[18]  M. Bell,et al.  The first 100 da Vinci hysterectomies: an analysis of the learning curve for a single surgeon. , 2009, South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association.

[19]  A F Monk,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF THE LEARNING CURVE IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  N. Lambrou,et al.  A Case Matched Analysis of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy with Lymphadenectomy Compared with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy , 2009 .

[21]  I. Frank,et al.  Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: Sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. , 2004, American journal of surgery.

[22]  E. S. Page.  CONTINUOUS INSPECTION SCHEMES , 1954 .