Credentialing for robotic lobectomy: what is the learning curve? A retrospective analysis of 272 consecutive cases by a single surgeon

Credentialing processes for surgeons seeking robotic thoracic surgical privileges are not evidence-based, and the learning curve has not been reported. The goal of this study is to review our experience with robotic lobectomies and provide evidence for the development of a more uniform credentialing process. We performed a retrospective review of the first 272 consecutive robotic lobectomies performed between 2011 and 2017 by a single surgeon with prior video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) experience. Primary outcomes were operative duration, blood loss, chest tube duration, length of hospital stay, intraoperative complication, and conversion to thoracotomy. The patients were subdivided by surgical date into two cohorts of 120 consecutive patients to compare differences in outcomes, thereby illustrating the learning curve. Between 2011 and 2017, 272 patients (median age 67.5 years) underwent a robotic lobectomy by a single surgeon. The majority of patients (157/272) had early stage (T1N0) adenocarcinoma. For the entire cohort, median operative time was 160 min (83–317 min). The median blood loss was 75 mL (10–4000 mL). Median chest tube duration was 2 days (1–23 days) and median hospital stay was 3 days (1–25 days). Intraoperative complications occurred in seven patients. Only six patients required conversion to thoracotomy. Using multivariable logistic regression, it was found that the age, gender, and stage do not factor into conversion to thoracotomy, but BMI was found to be a significant covariate (p 0.043). As the surgeon performs more surgeries, there is a significantly shorter operative time (p < 0.001), decreased blood loss (p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.014). When the first 120 and last 120 surgeries were compared, there was significantly less blood loss (234.6 vs 78.69 cc, p < 0.001), shorter operative time (181.9 vs 147.4 min, p < 0.001), shorter tube duration (3.49 vs 3.11 days, p 0.007), and shorter length of stay (4.03 vs 3.48 days, p < 0.001), respectively. More intraoperative complications were observed during the first 120 surgeries (6/120) compared to the last 120 surgeries (0/120; Fischer exact p = 0.029). Regression model plots did not show any apparent and significant change points, but rather a steady improvement. The more cases the surgeon does, the better is the outcome in terms of operative duration, blood loss, post-operative length of stay and intraoperative complications. The learning curve for robotic surgery for a surgeon with prior VATS experience is that of a continuous improvement with experience instead of a particular change point. Since most thoracic surgeons who perform robotic-assisted surgery have already gotten past their VATS learning curves, they no longer have a definable learning curve for robotic surgery. Hence, if a surgeon is already proficient and credentialed to perform VATS lung resections, he or she is no longer faced with a significant learning curve for robotic lung resections, and should be credentialed to do so once he or she has undergone the appropriate training with the equipment and technology.