Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon's experience. From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency-gain curve (p-g curve) by the surgeon with each platform. In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p-g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1-19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20-40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001). Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon's experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.
Highlights
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) was introduced to overcome the kinematic restrictions imposed on the operating surgeon by conventional laparoscopic surgery
Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi with the da Vinci Table Motion (dVTM) is associated with a shorter operative time, reduced docking time, and higher full robotic resection rates compared to the previous da Vinci Si [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]
Mean overall operative time (OT) and mean docking time were significantly shorter in the Xi-RobTME: 283 ± 49 min vs. 311 ± 58 min in the Si-RobTME group (p=0.025), with a mean difference of -27.5 min, and 16.8 ± 3.5 min in the Xi-RobTME group vs. 22.0 ± 2.5 min in the Si-RobTME group (p
Summary
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) was introduced to overcome the kinematic restrictions imposed on the operating surgeon by conventional laparoscopic surgery. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi with the dVTM is associated with a shorter operative time, reduced docking time, and higher full robotic resection rates compared to the previous da Vinci Si [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Despite several published studies regarding clinical and surgical benefits of robotassisted colorectal surgery since the introduction of da Vinci Surgical System, to date few studies have reported a structured cost analysis, and none have analysed the possible differences in costs between da Vinci Si and new da Vinci Xi. The aim of this study is to compare surgical parameters and costs of robotic surgery for rectal cancer with the use of da Vinci Si and Xi surgical platforms. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon’s experience
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
