Robotic General Surgery Research Articles

Robotics in General Surgery: Update and Future Perspectives

Robotics in General Surgery: Update and Future Perspectives

Training current and future robotic surgeons simultaneously: initial experiences with safety and efficiency.

Robotic surgery is experiencing a rapidly-increasing presence in the field of general surgery. The adoption of any new technology carries the challenge of training current and future surgeons in a safe and effective manner. We report our experience with the initiation of a robotic general surgery program at an academic institution while simultaneously incorporating surgical trainees. The initial procedure performed was robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC). Concurrent with the introduction of a robotic general surgical program, our institution implemented a progressive surgical trainee curriculum for all active residents and fellows. Immediately after being credentialed to perform RAC, attending surgeons began incorporating surgical trainees into robotic procedures. We retrospectively reviewed our first 50 RACs and compared them with our previous 50 standard laparoscopic cholecystectomies (SLC) to determine the impact of rapid integration of surgical trainees on developing technologies. Despite new technology and novice surgeons, there was no difference in mean operative time between the SLC and RAC groups (75.3 vs. 84.1min, p=0.077). Two patients in the robotic-assisted group required intraoperative conversion. Hospital length of stay was similar between groups, with the majority of patients leaving the same day. There were no postoperative complications in either group. A robotic general surgery program can be initiated while concurrently instructing surgical trainees on robotic surgery in a safe and efficient manner. We report our initial experience with the adoption of this rapidly advancing technology and describe our training model.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review.

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.

The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the most commonly performed robotic-assisted general surgery (RAGS) procedures in a nationwide database and compare them with their laparoscopic counterparts. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2008 to December 2010 for patients undergoing elective, abdominal RAGS procedures. The two most common, robotic-assisted fundoplication (RF) and gastroenterostomy without gastrectomy (RG), were individually compared with the laparoscopic counterparts (LF and LG, respectively). During the study, 297,335 patients underwent abdominal general surgery procedures, in which 1,809 (0.6 %) utilized robotic-assistance. From 2009 to 2010, the incidence of RAGS nearly doubled from 573 to 1128 cases. The top five RAGS procedures by frequency were LG, LF, laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, other anterior resection of rectum, and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Eight of the top ten RAGS were colorectal or foregut operations. RG was performed in 282 patients (0.9 %) and LG in 29,677 patients (99.1 %). When comparing RG with LG there was no difference in age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative complications, or mortality; however, length of stay (LOS) was longer in RG (2.5 ± 2.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.5 days; p < 0.0001). Total cost for RG was substantially higher ($60,837 ± 28,887 vs. $42,743 ± 23,366; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (87.2 vs. 50.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (100 vs. 93.0 %; p < 0.0001). RF was performed in 272 patients (3.5 %) and LF in 7,484 patients (96.5 %). RF patients were more often male compared with LF (38.2 vs. 32.3 %; p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in age, race, CCI, LOS, or postoperative complications. RF was more expensive than LF ($37,638 ± 21,134 vs. $32,947 ± 24,052; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (72.4 vs. 54.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (98.5 vs. 88.7 %; p < 0.0001). This nationwide study of RAGS exemplifies its low but increasing incidence across the country. RAGS is regionalized to urban teaching centers compared with conventional laparoscopic techniques. Despite similar postoperative outcomes, there is significantly increased cost associated with RAGS.

Robotic general surgery experience: a gradual progress from simple to more complex procedures

Robotic surgery was introduced at our institution in 2003, and we used a progressive approach advancing from simple to more complex procedures. A retrospective chart review. Cases included totalled 129. Set-up and operative times have improved over time and with experience. Conversion rates to standard laparoscopic or open techniques were 4.7% and 1.6%, respectively. Intraoperative complications (6.2%), blood loss and hospital stay were directly proportional to complexity. There were no mortalities and the postoperative complication rate (13.2%) was within accepted norms. Our findings suggest that robot technology is presently most useful in cases tailored toward its advantages, i.e. those confined to a single space, those that require performance of complex tasks, and re-do procedures.

Use, Cost, Complications, and Mortality of Robotic versus Nonrobotic General Surgery Procedures Based on a Nationwide Database

Since its introduction in 1997, robotic surgery has overcome many limitations, including setup costs and surgeon training. The use of robotics in general surgery remains unknown. This study evaluates robotic-assisted procedures in general surgery by comparing characteristics with its nonrobotic (laparoscopic and open) counterparts. Weighted Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2008, 2009) were used to identify the top 12 procedures for robotic general surgery. Robotic cases were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes 17.41 and 17.42. Procedures were grouped: esophagogastric, colorectal, adrenalectomy, lysis of adhesion, and cholecystectomy. Analyses were descriptive, t tests, χ(2)s, and logistic regression. Charges and length of stay were adjusted for gender, age, race, payer, hospital bed size, hospital location, hospital region, median household income, Charlson score, and procedure type. There were 1,389,235 (97.4%) nonrobotic and 37,270 (2.6%) robotic cases. Robotic cases increased from 0.8 per cent (2008) to 4.3 per cent (2009, P < 0.001). In all subgroups, robotic surgery had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.9 days) than open surgery (6.1 days) and lower charges (median $30,540) than laparoscopic ($34,537) and open ($46,704) surgery. Fewer complications were seen in robotic-assisted colorectal, adrenalectomy and lysis of adhesion; however, robotic cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures had higher complications than nonrobotic surgery (P < 0.05). Overall robotic surgery had a lower mortality rate (0.097%) than nonrobotic surgeries per 10,000 procedures (laparoscopic 0.48%, open 0.92%; P < 0.001). The cost of robotic surgery is generally considered a prohibitive factor. In the present study, when overall cost was considered, including length of stay, robotic surgery appeared to be cost-effective and as safe as nonrobotic surgery except in cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures. Further study is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of this new technology.

Application of Fluorescence in Robotic General Surgery: Review of the Literature and State of the Art

The initial use of the indocyanine green fluorescence imaging system was for sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast or colorectal cancer. Since then, application of this method has received wide acceptance in various fields of surgical oncology, and it has become a valid diagnostic tool for guiding cancer treatment. It has also been employed in numerous conventional surgical procedures with much success and benefit to the patient. The advent of minimally invasive surgery brought with it a new use for fluorescence in helping to improve the safety of these procedures, particularly for single-site procedures. In 2010, a near-infrared camera was integrated into the da Vinci Si System, creating a combination of technical and minimally invasive advantages that have been embraced by several experienced surgeons. The use of fluorescence, although useful, is considered challenging. Only a few studies are currently available on the use of fluorescence in robotic general surgery, whereas many articles have focused on its application in open and laparoscopic surgery. Many of these reports describe promising and satisfactory results, although with some shortcomings. The purpose of this article is to review the current status of the use of fluorescence in general surgery and particularly its role in robotic surgery. We also review potential uses in the future.

English

English

Impact of robotic general surgery course on participants’ surgical practice

Courses, including lectures, live surgery, and hands-on session, are part of the recommended curriculum for robotic surgery. However, for general surgery, this approach is poorly reported. The study purpose was to evaluate the impact of robotic general surgery course on the practice of participants. Between 2007 and 2011, 101 participants attended the Geneva International Robotic Surgery Course, held at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland. This 2-day course included theory lectures, dry lab, live surgery, and hands-on session on cadavers. After a mean of 30.1 months (range, 2-48), a retrospective review of the participants' surgical practice was performed using online research and surveys. Among the 101 participants, there was a majority of general (58.4 %) and colorectal surgeons (10.9 %). Other specialties included urologists (7.9 %), gynecologists (6.9 %), pediatric surgeons (2 %), surgical oncologists (1 %), engineers (6.9 %), and others (5.9 %). Data were fully recorded in 99 % of cases; 46 % of participants started to perform robotic procedures after the course, whereas only 6.9 % were already familiar with the system before the course. In addition, 53 % of the attendees worked at an institution where a robotic system was already available. All (100 %) of participants who started a robotic program after the course had an available robotic system at their institution. A course that includes lectures, live surgery, and hands-on session with cadavers is an effective educational method for spreading robotic skills. However, this is especially true for participants whose institution already has a robotic system available.

Perioperative Risk Assessment in Robotic General Surgery

To assess factors associated with morbidity and mortality following the use of robotics in general surgery. Case series. University of Illinois at Chicago. Eight hundred eighty-four consecutive patients who underwent a robotic procedure in our institution between April 2007 and July 2010. Perioperative morbidity and mortality. During the study period, 884 patients underwent a robotic procedure. The conversion rate was 2%, the mortality rate was 0.5%, and the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 16.7%. The reoperation rate was 2.4%. Mean length of stay was 4.5 days (range, 0.2-113 days). In univariate analysis, several factors were associated with increased morbidity and included either patient-related (cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] <30, age ≥ 70 years, and malignant disease) or procedure-related (blood loss ≥ 500 mL, transfusion, multiquadrant operation, and advanced procedure) factors. In multivariate analysis, advanced procedure, multiquadrant surgery, malignant disease, body mass index of less than 30, hypertension, and transfusion were factors significantly associated with a higher risk for complications. American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or greater, age 70 years or older, cardiovascular comorbidity, and blood loss of 500 mL or more were also associated with increased risk for mortality. Use of the robotic approach for general surgery can be achieved safely with low morbidity and mortality. Several risk factors have been identified as independent causes for higher morbidity and mortality. These can be used to identify patients at risk before and during the surgery and, in the future, to develop a scoring system for the use of robotic general surgery

Training in Robotic General Surgery: The Next Challenge

Training in Robotic General Surgery: The Next Challenge

Editorial for special surgical issue.

Laparoscopy has dramatically changed the paradigm of surgery. Beliefs that a bigger incision provides better exposure have slowly but assuredly been replaced by the pursuit of smaller and fewer incisions. The advantages of laparoscopy over open surgery were easily demonstrated with less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, quicker recovery, and even beyond with demonstrations of decreased adhesion formation and decreased inflammatory response to surgery. Although it has been 13 years since the first robotic general surgery procedure was performed, robotic surgery still remains, to a large extent, a new and relatively unexplored frontier in surgery. Led by urologists and robotic prostatectomy, however, other fields of surgery are slowly starting to follow suit. The challenges have largely been the costs and the availability of the robotic systems; however, acceptance of robotic surgery has also been hampered by attempts to measure the incremental benefits of robotic technology in similar terms to that of laparoscopy. The advantages of the robotic system are obvious to anyone that sits at a console: tremor filtration, scaling of motion, seven degrees of freedom, high definition, and magnified three-dimensional stereoscopic vision. All of these simply translate into the surgeon’s ability to see much better, work more precisely, and accommodate smaller working spaces. However, the benefits of robotic surgery will unlikely be measured by decreased pain, quicker recovery, or even perhaps better clinical outcomes. The impact of robotic surgery will go far beyond that. Robotic surgery heralds a different era of surgery that will profoundly change not only the way a surgeon operates, but also the way the surgeon will interact with the surgical environment and the patient. Integration of data, including stored and real-time imaging, into the surgical procedure; simulation-based presurgical planning; real-time collaboration with peers through console-based links; and further miniaturization and eventual wireless control of the patient-side instruments, will transform the MIS bedside surgeon into a conductor positioned in a surgical ‘‘cockpit’’ separated from the patient with access to a wide breadth of data orchestrating a complex interaction of events that will translate into very efficiently and precisely executed actions. As we stand at the eve of this surgical evolution, we are proud to present some of the global thought leaders of general surgery in robotic surgery with a special robotic general surgery section.

Safety of robotic general surgery in elderly patients.

As the life expectancy of people in Western countries continues to rise, so too does the number of elderly patients. In parallel, robotic surgery continues to gain increasing acceptance, allowing for more complex operations to be performed by minimally invasive approach and extending indications for surgery to this population. The aim of this study is to assess the safety of robotic general surgery in patients 70years and older. From April 2007 to December 2009, patients 70years and older, who underwent various robotic procedures at our institution, were stratified into three categories of surgical complexity (low, intermediate, and high). There were 73 patients, including 39 women (53.4%) and 34 men (46.6%). The median age was 75years (range 70-88years). There were 7, 24, and 42 patients included, respectively, in the low, intermediate, and high surgical complexity categories. Approximately 50% of patients underwent hepatic and pancreatic resections. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in terms of morbidity, mortality, readmission or transfusion. Mean overall operative time was 254±133min (range 15-560min). Perioperative mortality and morbidity was 1.4% and 15.1%, respectively. Transfusion rate was 9.6%, and median length of stay was 6days (range 0-30days). Robotic surgery can be performed safely in the elderly population with low mortality, acceptable morbidity, and short hospital stay. Age should not be considered as a contraindication to robotic surgery even for advanced procedures.

Current status of robotics in general surgery

Telesurgical systems have met with a great degree of acceptance in urology but indications are not yet that clear in the field of general surgery. The surgical robot overcomes certain limitations of conventional laparoscopy by offering three-dimensional, high definition vision, and seven degrees of freedom to the articulating instruments. Newer robots provide image integration, telestration and the dual-console capability for training purposes. According to our experiencs indications for robotic surgery are: the need for intracorporeal suturing, the expectant narrow surgical field, the expectant difficult dissection and/or adhesiolysis, especially in the upper abdomen, near the hiatus or very low in the pelvis. Although the use of robotic systems for simple laparoscopic cases is generally opposed on the basis of its increased operative time and cost, most teams accept that the beginning of the learning curve in robotic surgery must rely upon simple procedures such as cholecystectomies and Nissen fundoplications. Recent studies show more indications for robotic approach of cholecystectomies, such as in the setting of a reoperative, hostile abdomen following gangrenous cholecystitis, or in completion cholecystectomy.

The Evolution of Robotic General Surgery

Surgical robotics in general surgery has a relatively short but very interesting evolution. Just as minimally invasive and laparoscopic techniques have radically changed general surgery and fractionated it into subspecialization, robotic technology is likely to repeat the process of fractionation even further. Though it appears that robotics is growing more quickly in other specialties, the changes digital platforms are causing in the general surgical arena are likely to permanently alter general surgery. This review examines the evolution of robotics in minimally invasive general surgery looking forward to a time where robotics platforms will be fundamental to elective general surgery. Learning curves and adoption techniques are explored. Foregut, hepatobiliary, endocrine, colorectal, and bariatric surgery will be examined as growth areas for robotics, as well as revealing the current uses of this technology.

Application of Robotics in General Surgery: What Have We Learned After 468 Robotic-Assisted Surgical Procedures?

Application of Robotics in General Surgery: What Have We Learned After 468 Robotic-Assisted Surgical Procedures?

Application of Robotics in General Surgery: Initial Experience

Robotic surgery was recently approved for clinical use in general abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to review our experience with the da Vinci surgical system during laparoscopic general surgical procedures. Eighteen patients underwent robotically assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery between June 2002 and March 2003. Main outcome measures were operative time, room setup time, robotic arm-positioning and surgical time, blood loss, conversion to laparoscopy, length of stay, and morbidity. The types of robotically assisted laparoscopic procedures were excision of gastric leiomyoma (n = 1), Heller myotomy (n = 1), cholecystectomy (n = 2), gastric banding (n = 2), Nissen fundoplication (n = 4), and gastric bypass (n = 8). The mean room setup time was 63 +/- 14 minutes, and the mean robotic arm-positioning time was 16 +/- 7 minutes. Conversion to laparoscopy occurred in two (11%) of 18 cases because of equipment difficulty (n = 1) and technical difficulty (n = 1). Estimated blood loss was 91 +/- 71 mL. The mean operative time was 156 +/- 42 minutes, and the robotic operative time was 27% of the total operative time. The mean length of hospital stay was 2.2 +/- 1.5 days. There was one postoperative wound infection and one anastomotic stricture. Robotically assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery is feasible and safe; however, the theoretical advantages of the da Vinci surgical system were not clinically apparent.

Summary of "Current status of robotics in general surgery"

Summary of "Current status of robotics in general surgery"

Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital.

Robotic technology is the most advanced development of minimally invasive surgery, but there are still some unresolved issues concerning its use in a clinical setting. The study describes the clinical experience of the Department of General Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto, Italy, in robot-assisted surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System. Between October 2000 and November 2002, 193 patients underwent a minimally invasive robotic procedure (74 men and 119 women; mean age, 55.9 years [range, 16-91 years]). A total of 207 robotic surgical operations, including abdominal, thoracic and vascular procedures, were performed; 179 were single procedures, and 14 were double (2 operations on the same patient). There were 4 conversions to open surgery and 3 to conventional laparoscopy (conversion rate, 3.6%; 7 of 193 patients). The perioperative morbidity rate was 9.3% (18 of 193 patients), and 6 patients (3.1%) required a reoperation. The postoperative mortality rate was 1.5% (3 of 193 patients). Our preliminary experience at a large community hospital suggests that robotic surgery is feasible in a clinical setting. Its daily use is safe and easily managed, and it expands the applications of minimally invasive surgery. However, the best indications still have to be defined, and the cost-benefit ratio must be evaluated. This report could serve as a basis for a future prospective, randomized trial.

Robotics in General Surgery

Robotics in General Surgery