Assessing the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicenter study considering procedural safety, pathological safety, and efficiency.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is scarce and of low quality. Case-mix is mostly not taken into account, and learning curves are based on operative time, while preferably clinical outcomes and literature-based limits should be used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in four Dutch centers. The primary aim was to assess the safety of the individual and institutional learning curves using a RA-CUSUM analysis based on intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome (positive circumferential margin or incomplete TME specimen). The learning curve for efficiency was assessed using a LC-CUSUM analysis for operative time. Outcomes of patients before and after the learning curve were compared. RESULTS: In this study, seven participating surgeons performed robot-assisted total mesorectal excisions in 531 patients. Learning curves for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined literature-based limits. The LC-CUSUM for operative time showed lengths of the learning curve ranging from 12 to 35 cases. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes did not differ between patients operated during and after the learning curve. CONCLUSION: The learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined limits and is therefore suggested to be safe. Using operative time as a surrogate for efficiency, the learning curve is estimated to be between 12 and 35 procedures.

Blunt splenic trauma in children: are we too careful?

INTRODUCTION: There has been a shift from operative treatment (OT) to non-operative treatment (NOT) of splenic injury. We evaluated the outcomes of treatment of pediatric patients with blunt splenic trauma in our hospital, with special focus on the outcomes after NOT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of all patients <18 years with radiologically proven blunt splenic injury admitted between 1988 and 2007 were retrospectively analyzed. Mechanism of injury, type of treatment, ICU stay, total hospital stay, morbidity and mortality were assessed. Patients suffering isolated splenic injuries were assessed separately from patients with multiple injuries. Patients were subsequently divided into those admitted before and after 2000. RESULTS: There were 64 patients: 49 males and 15 females with a mean age of 13 years (range 0-18). 3 patients died shortly after admission due to severe neurological injury and were excluded. In the remaining 61 patients concomitant injuries, present in 62%, included long bone fractures (36%), chest injuries (16%), abdominal injuries (33%) and head injuries (30%). Mechanisms of injury were: car accidents (26%), motorcycle (20%), bicycle (19%), fall from height (17%) and pedestrians struck by a moving vehicle (8%). A change in treatment strategy was evident for the pre- and post-2000 periods. Significantly more patients had NOT after 2000 in both the isolated splenic injury group and the multi-trauma group [4/11 (36%) before vs. 10/11 (91%) after (p=0.009); 15/19 (79%) before vs. 8/20 (40%) after 2000 (p=0.03)]. There was also a significant shift to spleen-preserving operations. All life-threatening complications occurred within <24 h after injury. Mortality for the entire cohort was 7%; all of these patients were treated operatively. When comparing the median ICU and hospital stay before and after 2000 it was found to be significantly higher in the isolated injury group and remained statistically the same in the multi-trauma group. CONCLUSION: Splenic injury in children is associated with substantial mortality. This is due to concomitant injuries and not to the splenic injury. Non-operative treatment is increasingly preferred to operative procedures when treating splenic injuries in hemodynamically, stable children. ICU and hospital stay have, despite the change from OT to NOT, remained the same. Complications after NOT are rare. We are still observing children in hospital for a longer period than is necessary.