Learning Curve Analysis for Robotic-assisted Harvest of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap

The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the preferred method for autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy, but risks the development of hernia, bulge, and decreased core strength. Robotic harvest of DIEP vessels may limit abdominal wall morbidity through smaller fascial incisions and preservation of motor nerves. This study shows the expected learning curve (LC) for robotic harvest and compares the LC between a general surgeon (GS) and a plastic surgeon (PS). A retrospective cohort study was performed for patients who underwent bilateral robotic DIEP flap harvest from October 2021 to September 2022. We evaluated robotic pedicle dissection time (DT) and compared the times between GS and PS. We calculated LC for each surgeon using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mstyle><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi> <mml:mi>U</mml:mi> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:mi>U</mml:mi> <mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:munderover><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:munderover> <mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> <mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:munder><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> <mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mstyle> </mml:munder> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow> </mml:mstyle> </mml:math> . The LC was identified as the peak of the CUSUM graph. Forty-four flap dissections were recorded during the collection period: 27 by the PS and 17 by the GS. There was no significant difference in DT between the GS and the PS (<i>P</i> = 0.366), and both surgeons saw a decrease in DT over time. Using the CUSUM method, we see the peak of the plot at patient 9 for the PS and the peak of the plot at patient 5 for the GS, after which cumulative DT decreased. As robotic harvest of DIEP flaps becomes accepted, plastic surgeons who wish to incorporate it into their practice may achieve proficiency in their DT within 10 flap harvests and a similar DT compared with robotic-trained GSs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000006242
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.44
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Learning Curve Analysis for Robotic-assisted Harvest of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap

Daniel Murariu, Brian Chen, Elizabeth Bailey, Andréa Moreira et al.
6 citations
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
3.44
article

Learning Curve Analysis for Robotic-assisted Harvest of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap

Daniel Murariu, Brian Chen, Elizabeth Bailey, Andréa Moreira, William Nelson
article en
6 citations

Abstract

The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the preferred method for autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy, but risks the development of hernia, bulge, and decreased core strength. Robotic harvest of DIEP vessels may limit abdominal wall morbidity through smaller fascial incisions and preservation of motor nerves. This study shows the expected learning curve (LC) for robotic harvest and compares the LC between a general surgeon (GS) and a plastic surgeon (PS). A retrospective cohort study was performed for patients who underwent bilateral robotic DIEP flap harvest from October 2021 to September 2022. We evaluated robotic pedicle dissection time (DT) and compared the times between GS and PS. We calculated LC for each surgeon using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mstyle><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi> <mml:mi>U</mml:mi> <mml:mi>S</mml:mi> <mml:mi>U</mml:mi> <mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:mrow> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:munderover><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow> </mml:munderover> <mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> <mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mo>-</mml:mo> <mml:munder><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> <mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mstyle> </mml:munder> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow> </mml:mstyle> </mml:math> . The LC was identified as the peak of the CUSUM graph. Forty-four flap dissections were recorded during the collection period: 27 by the PS and 17 by the GS. There was no significant difference in DT between the GS and the PS (<i>P</i> = 0.366), and both surgeons saw a decrease in DT over time. Using the CUSUM method, we see the peak of the plot at patient 9 for the PS and the peak of the plot at patient 5 for the GS, after which cumulative DT decreased. As robotic harvest of DIEP flaps becomes accepted, plastic surgeons who wish to incorporate it into their practice may achieve proficiency in their DT within 10 flap harvests and a similar DT compared with robotic-trained GSs.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenVol. 12(10)
Allegheny Health Network (US), University of Pittsburgh (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
3.44
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.