Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Open access
Vickers, Andrew J, Savage, Caroline J, Hruza, Marcel, Tuerk, Ingolf, Koenig, Philippe, Martínez-Piñeiro, Luis, Janetschek, Gunther, Guillonneau, Bertrand·2009·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background We previously reported the learning curve for open radical prostatectomy, defined in terms of prostate cancer recurrence. We sought to characterize the learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 5328 prostate cancer patients treated laparoscopically by one of 29 surgeons from 7 institutions in Europe and North America between 1998 and 2007. Multivariable models were used to evaluate the association between surgeon experience at the time of each patient's operation and prostate cancer recurrence, with adjustment for established predictors. Findings After adjusting for casemix, greater surgeon experience was associated with a lower risk of recurrence (P=0.0053). The 5-year risk of recurrence decreased from 17% to 16% to 9% for a patient treated by a surgeon with 10, 250 and 750 prior laparoscopic procedures (risk difference 8.0% 95% CI: 4.4%, 12.0%). The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was slower than the previously reported learning curve for open surgery (p<0.001). Surgeons with previous experience of open radical prostatectomy had significantly poorer results than those whose first operation was laparoscopic (risk difference 12.3%; 95% CI: 8.8%, 15.7%). Interpretation Increasing surgical experience is associated with substantial reductions in cancer recurrence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Improvements in outcome seem to accrue more slowly in comparison with open surgery. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy appears to involve skills that do not translate well from open experience. Funding source This paper was supported by funds from the National Cancer Institute, the Allbritton Fund and the David J. Koch Foundation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70079-8

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Vickers, A. J., Savage, C. J., Hruza, M., Tuerk, I., Koenig, P., Martínez-Piñeiro, L., Janetschek, G., & Guillonneau, B.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
475-480
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967233264
Cited by
289
References
8
FWCI
24.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70079-8
The paper
Vickers, A. J., Savage, C. J., Hruza, M., Tuerk, I., Koenig, P., Martínez-Piñeiro, L., Janetschek, G., & Guillonneau, B. (2009). The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70079-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.