Learning Curve of Robotic Pancreatoduodenectomy

NCT ID: NCT06094465

Last Updated: 2023-10-23

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

100 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-04-01

Study Completion Date

2022-10-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

A few reports were focused on the RPD learning curve for surgeons with extensive experience in LPD. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the number of cases required for such surgeons to overcome the learning curve for RPD and to analyze the impact of different phases of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

With the development of robotic surgery systems, their unique advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery systems, such as a three-dimensional 10-fold magnified view, seven degrees of freedom for flexible wrist movements, tremor filtering, and good ergonomic design, have significantly improved the precision and quality of surgery. The literature has reported that, compared with the laparoscopic surgery system, the robotic surgery system can reduce intraoperative blood loss and the conversion rate to laparotomy, in addition to the dissection of more lymph nodes. Therefore, robotic surgery has become increasingly popular. As the economy develops and surgeons gain more experience in LPD, many are shifting their focus to robotic pancreatoduodenectomy after mastering laparoscopic techniques. There are a few reports on the RPD learning curve for surgeons with extensive experience in LPD. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the number of cases required for such surgeons to overcome the learning curve for RPD and to analyze the impact of different phases of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

learning phase

According to the CUSUM curve, the phase before the peak of the curve is defined as the learning phase.

Different phase of the learning curve of RPD

Intervention Type OTHER

Different phases of the learning curve of RPD (learning phase or proficiency phase)

proficiency phase

According to the CUSUM curve, the phase after the peak of the curve is defined as the learning phase.

Different phase of the learning curve of RPD

Intervention Type OTHER

Different phases of the learning curve of RPD (learning phase or proficiency phase)

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Different phase of the learning curve of RPD

Different phases of the learning curve of RPD (learning phase or proficiency phase)

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

patients who received robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Exclusion Criteria

patients who did not receive robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Peking Union Medical College Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Menghua Dai, MD

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Peking Union Medical College Hospital

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

China

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Strobel O, Neoptolemos J, Jager D, Buchler MW. Optimizing the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surgery. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan;16(1):11-26. doi: 10.1038/s41571-018-0112-1.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30341417 (View on PubMed)

Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 1994 May;8(5):408-10. doi: 10.1007/BF00642443.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 7915434 (View on PubMed)

Zhang H, Wu X, Zhu F, Shen M, Tian R, Shi C, Wang X, Xiao G, Guo X, Wang M, Qin R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2016 Dec;30(12):5173-5184. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4864-3. Epub 2016 Mar 22.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 27005287 (View on PubMed)

Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF, Probst P, Limen EF, Kalkum E, Diener MK, Strobel O, Muller-Stich BP, Hackert T. Laparoscopic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):54-66. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003309.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30973388 (View on PubMed)

Wang M, Li D, Chen R, Huang X, Li J, Liu Y, Liu J, Cheng W, Chen X, Zhao W, Li J, Tan Z, Huang H, Li D, Zhu F, Qin T, Ma J, Yu G, Zhou B, Zheng S, Tang Y, Han W, Meng L, Ke J, Feng F, Chen B, Yin X, Chen W, Ma H, Xu J, Liu Y, Lin R, Dong Y, Yu Y, Liu J, Zhang H, Qin R; Minimally Invasive Treatment Group in the Pancreatic Disease Branch of China's International Exchange and Promotion Association for Medicine and Healthcare (MITG-P-CPAM). Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic or periampullary tumours: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jun;6(6):438-447. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00054-6. Epub 2021 Apr 27.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 33915091 (View on PubMed)

Poves I, Burdio F, Morato O, Iglesias M, Radosevic A, Ilzarbe L, Visa L, Grande L. Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Approach for Pancreatoduodenectomy: The PADULAP Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2018 Nov;268(5):731-739. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002893.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30138162 (View on PubMed)

Zhang H, Lan X, Peng B, Li B. Is total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy superior to open procedure? A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Oct 7;25(37):5711-5731. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i37.5711.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 31602170 (View on PubMed)

Kamarajah SK, Gujjuri R, Bundred JR, Hilal MA, White SA. Long-term survival after minimally invasive resection versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary cancers: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. HPB (Oxford). 2021 Feb;23(2):197-205. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.09.023. Epub 2020 Oct 16.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 33077373 (View on PubMed)

Kawka M, Gall TMH, Hand F, Nazarian S, Cunningham D, Nicol D, Jiao LR. The influence of procedural volume on short-term outcomes for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy-a cohort study and a learning curve analysis. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jun;37(6):4719-4727. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09941-8. Epub 2023 Mar 8.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 36890417 (View on PubMed)

Boone BA, Zenati M, Hogg ME, Steve J, Moser AJ, Bartlett DL, Zeh HJ, Zureikat AH. Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg. 2015 May;150(5):416-22. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.17.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 25761143 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

RPD

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Uncut Roux-en-Y vs Roux-en-Y
NCT03349398 UNKNOWN NA