Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026
Emergency Undocking in Robotic Surgery: A Simulation Curriculum
Published on: May 20, 2018
Learning Curves in Robotic Urological Oncological Surgery: Has Anything Changed During the Last Five Years?
Theodoros Tokas1,2, Charalampos Mavridis1, Athanasios Bouchalakis1
1Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, Medical School, 71500 Heraklion, Greece.
Background:
Despite numerous studies assessing LCs in urological surgical oncology, high-quality evidence and a fully structured curriculum are missing. We aimed to systematically search and review the available literature on the LCs of robot-assisted surgery in urological cancers.
Methods:
Medline was systematically searched up to December 2024 to retrieve studies following the Preferred Reporting Items reporting on LC in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC), robot-assisted radical and partial nephrectomy (RARN, RAPN), and robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy (RANU). The results of the last five years were then compared to those of the previous years.
Results:
In total, 82 studies were identified, 47 of which were for prostatectomy, 9 of which were for the last 5 years. Eighteen studies referred to partial-nephrectomy, seven over the previous 5 years. Finally, 16 studies referred to radical cystectomy, 7 over the previous five years. For radical prostatectomy, LC was based on operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stays, complication rate, positive surgical margin (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR), continence, and potency with ranges of 100-400, 90-290, 200, 15-250, 50-300, 30-250, 200-500 and 200-300 cases, respectively. For partial nephrectomy, the LC was based on OT, EBL, length of hospital stay, complication rate, warm ischemia time (WIT), and trifecta, with unclear ranges for the first three categories and 20-50, 26-140, and 50-77 cases, respectively, for the rest. Finally, for radical cystectomy, the LC was based on OT, EBL, length of hospital stay, complication rate, PSM, and lymph node yield, with ranges 20-75, 88, 40-198, 16-100, no difference, and 30-50 cases, respectively. We could not identify any study assessing the LCs in RARN and RANU.
Conclusions:
Robot-assisted surgery does not have a standard definition of LC regardless of the type of operation, which causes heterogeneity between the studies. Nevertheless, LCs appear to be steep and continuous. Training curriculums are essential to optimize outcomes and prepare new surgeons.
