SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

ARTIS Pheno®: a potential tool for cochlear implant surgery

PURPOSE

Cochlear implantation is a standard approach to hearing rehabilitation and encompasses three main stages: appropriate patient selection, a challenging surgical procedure, which should be as atraumatic as possible and preserve cochlear structures, and lifelong postoperative follow-up. Computed tomography (CT) is performed to assess postoperative implant position. The Siemens Advanced Radar Target Identification System (ARTIS) Pheno provides fluoroscopic imaging during surgery and has so far been mainly used by cardiologists, neurosurgeons and trauma surgeons.

METHODS

Six patients with difficult anatomy or a challenging medical history were selected for a surgical procedure, during which we planned to use the ARTIS Pheno to accurately position and assess implant position under fluoroscopy during and immediately after surgery. In all six cases, the ARTIS Pheno was used directly in the surgical setting. The procedures were performed in cooperation with the neuroradiology department in an interdisciplinary manner.

RESULTS

In all six patients, fluoroscopy was used to visualise the procedure at different stages of surgery. In five patients, the procedure was successfully completed. This approach allowed us to finally assess implant position and confirm the correct and complete insertion of the electrode while the patient was still under anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

These cases showed positive surgical outcomes. Although the procedure is more complex than a standard approach, patients can be managed in a safe, effective and appropriate manner. The assessment of implant position in real time during surgery leads to greater patient and surgeon satisfaction. The approach presented here ensures a high quality of cochlear implant surgery even in difficult surgical situations and meets the requirements of modern surgery.

Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic left colectomy for radical treatment of colon cancer: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 211 patients

Background

Robotic surgery has been widely used in the radical treatment of colonic cancer. However, it is unclear what advantages the robotic approach offers over other approaches in left colectomy. This study aims to explore the advantage of robotic surgery in left colectomy by comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with radical left colectomy for colon cancer who were admitted to the Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, from November 2012 to November 2017. Two hundred eleven patients included were divided into the open surgery group (OS, n=49), laparoscopic surgery group (LS, n=92), and robotic surgery group (RS, n=70) according to surgical techniques. The clinicopathologic data were collected for clinical outcome assessment. Finally, the clinical value of RS in radical left colectomy was further evaluated by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

Three groups were similar in demographics and clinical characteristics. Compared with OS, LS and RS groups had better intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes. Moreover, the RS group exhibited the minimum operative times, length of stay (LOS), and evaluated blood loss. LS and RS also exhibited less perioperative and postoperative long-term complications. Three groups showed similar postoperative pathological outcomes. The overall survival and disease-free survival were also similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.671) and disease-free survival (P = 0.776). PSM analysis of RS and LS by clinical characteristics showed RS showed shorter operation time (P < 0.001) and LOS for patients without complications (P = 0.005). However, no significant differences were found in perioperative and long-term postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

Conclusions

Among three techniques for radical left colectomy, LS and RS had significant advantages over OS in short-term clinical outcomes, and no significant differences were found in overall, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis incidence. Moreover, RS shows better perioperative clinical outcomes but without compromising survival compared with LS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02796-8.

Status of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) and the effects of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on RAS in the Department of Defense (DoD)

The purpose of this study is to update the available literature with information on the current use of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) in the Department of Defense (DoD) compared to the civilian world, and how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted RAS in the DoD. A total of 9,979 RAS cases between 01st October 2017 and 31st December 2020 were reviewed from every DoD Military Treatment Facility (MTF) that meets our inclusion criteria and employs various models of da Vinci robotic surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical). Specialty, number, and facility were recorded for each case. These data were then compared to previously known trends about RAS use in the DoD as well as with civilian trends. Before COVID-19, the use of RAS had increased over time, but not at the same rate as in the civilian sector. General surgery cases constituted most RAS cases in both the DoD and the civilian sector. The arrival of COVID-19 in the United States significantly decreased the use of RAS in the DoD as well as in the civilian sector in all surgical specialties because it led to postponement or cancellation of many non-emergent surgical procedures. In conclusion, the use of RAS has continued to increase, and general surgery cases continue to constitute most of these cases. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic began, there was a significant decline in both DoD and civilian RAS cases, with a more pronounced decline in the DoD.

Analysis and Comparison of Electromagnetic Microrobotic Platforms for Biomedical Applications

Magnetic microrobotics is a promising technology for improving minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with the ambition of enhancing patient care and comfort. The potential benefits include limited incisions, less hemorrhaging and postoperative pain, and faster recovery time. To achieve this, a key issue relies on the design of a proper electromagnetic actuation (EMA) setup which is based on the use of magnetic sources. The magnetic field and its gradient generated by the EMA platform is then used to induce magnetic torque and force for microrobot manipulations inside the human body. Like any control systems, the EMA system must be adapted to the given controlled microrobot and customized for the application. With great research efforts on magnetic manipulating of microrobots, the EMA systems are approaching commercial applications, and their configurations are becoming more suitable to be employed in real medical surgeries. However, most of the proposed designs have not followed any specific rule allowing to take into account the biomedical applications constraints. Through reviewing the different proposed EMA systems in the literature, their various specifications and configurations are comprehensively discussed and analyzed. This study focus on EMA platforms that use electromagnets. From this review and based on the biomedical application specifications, the appropriate EMA system can be determined efficiently.

No beneficial effect on survival but a decrease in postoperative complications in patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic surgery has been taken as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Here we aim to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer receiving robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Data from patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between March 2011 and December 2018 were obtained for outcome assessment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. All patients were separated into two groups: a robot group (patients receiving robotic surgery, n = 314) and a laparoscopy group (patients receiving laparoscopic surgery, n = 220). The primary endpoint was survival outcomes. The secondary endpoints were the general conditions of the operation, postoperative complications and pathological characteristics.

Results

The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at years 1, 3 and 5 were 96.6%, 88.7%, and 87.7% vs. 96.7%, 88.1%, and 78.4%, and 98.6%, 80.2-, and 73.5% vs. 96.2-, 87.2-, and 81.1% in the robot and laparoscopy groups, respectively (P > 0.05). In the multivariable-adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS (P = 0.925 and 0.451, respectively). With respect to the general conditions of the operation, patients in the robot group had significantly shorter operation times (163.5 ± 40.9 vs. 190.5 ± 51.9 min), shorter times to 1^st gas passing [2(1) vs. 3(1)d] and shorter hospital stay days [7(2) vs. 8(3)d] compared to those in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.01, respectively). After the operation, the incidence of short- and long-term complications in the robot group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopy group (15.9% vs. 32.3%; P < 0.001), especially for urinary retention (1.9% vs. 7.3%; 0.6% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.05, respectively). With regard to pathological characteristics, TNM stages II and III were more frequently observed in the robot group than in the laparoscopy group (94.3% vs. 83.2%, P < 0.001). No significant difference were observed in lymph nodes retrieved, lymphovascular invasion and circumferential resection margin involvement between the two groups (P > 0.05, respectively).

Conclusions

This monocentre retrospective comparative cohort study revealed short-term advantages of robot-assisted rectal cancer resection but similar survival compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Experience with 10 years of a robotic surgery program at an Academic Medical Center

Background

Few studies have examined robotic surgery from a programmatic standpoint, yet this is how hospitals evaluate return on investment clinically and fiscally. This study examines the 10-year experience of a robotic program at a single academic institution.

Study design

All robotic operations performed at our institution from August 2005 to December 2016 were reviewed. Data were collected from the robotic system and hospital databases.

Results

A total of 3485 robotic operations were performed. Yearly case volume nearly quadrupled. There have been 37 robotic-trained surgeons in 5 specialties performing 53 different operations. Rate of conversion to open was 4.2%. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class increased over time, with ASA class 3 increasing from 20% of patients to 45% of patients.

Average case time in 2005 was 453 min, but decreased by 46% to 246 min by 2007, then remained relatively stable (range 226–247). Operating efficiency improved, with room time and case time decreasing by 9% in the past 4 years.

Average cost for robotic supplies was $1519 per case. Additional costs per case related to equipment and contracts totaled an average of $11,822.

Average length of stay (LOS) for robotic cases was 3.3 days, compared to 3.0 days for laparoscopic and 7.0 for open. Cost per day for admission after robotic surgery was 1.7 times greater than the cost of open or laparoscopic surgery. Total admission costs of robotic operations were 1.5 times those of laparoscopic surgery, but less than open operations. Readmissions following robotic cases were lower than open (15% v 26%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Over 10 years, the use of robotic technology has grown significantly at our institution, with good fiscal and clinical outcomes. Operating room costs are high; however, efficiency has improved, LOS is shorter, admission costs are lower than open operations, and readmission rates are lower.

[Evaluation of an integrated OR based on open standards in Cochlea Implant surgery]

BACKGROUND

 Digitalization in surgery makes it necessary to develop modern surgical concepts. New approaches to system networking with integration and open standardized communication of all medical devices are being pursued.

METHODS

 At the University Hospital Leipzig, a demonstration of the integrated OR was carried out together with the Innovation Center for Computer Assisted Surgery (ICCAS) using the example of a cochlea implantation. The preoperative management, technical preparation, surgical procedure and postoperative documentation by a total of n = 30 study participants (2 expert groups) were evaluated. In addition to the collection of objective parameters, qualitative questionnaires and quantitative, interval-scaled questions were used.

RESULTS

 Preoperatively, the digital presentation of the patient's clinical data was considered as helpful by both groups (group 1: median = 5, group 2: median = 4). This also applies to the personalized OR settings, the intraoperative display options and the dynamic, surgeon-centered visualization (median = 4). Similar positive conclusions were drawn for postoperative documentation and postoperative follow-up (median = 4). A significant difference in the final evaluation of the integrated surgical concept between the two expert groups could not be determined (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

 The positive study results show that the theoretical idea of system networking based on open standards can be successfully implemented in practice using the example of a cochlea implantation. Thus, the intelligent "operating room of the future" no longer seems to be a fictitious idea, but a realistic image of modern surgical medicine.

Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries

With the rapid expansion of robotic platforms in urology, there is an urgent and unmet need to review its cost and benefits in comparison to the traditional laparoscopy, especially in reference to a developing country. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted urologic procedures. Available literature over the past 30 years was reviewed. Robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy were found to have similar outcomes in the areas of radical prostatectomy, partial and radical nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) dissection, inguinal LN dissection, donor nephrectomy, and kidney transplantation. Robot-assisted surgery was found to be significantly costlier than pure laparoscopy. In the absence of a clear advantage of robot-assisted surgery over pure laparoscopy, lack of widespread availability and the currently prohibitive cost of robotic technology, laparoscopic urological surgery has a definite role in the developing world.

Robotic Liver Resection

Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved. It is particularly attractive as an alternative minimally invasive approach in liver surgery because of improvements in visualization and articulated instruments. Limitations include increased operative times and lack of tactile feedback, but these have not been shown in studies. Considerations unique to robotic surgery, including safety protocols, must be put in place and be reviewed at the beginning of every procedure to ensure safety in the event of an emergent conversion. Despite the lack of early adoption by many hepatobiliary surgeons, robotic liver surgery continues to evolve and find its place within hepatobiliary surgery.

Status of Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) in the Department of Defense (DoD)

INTRODUCTION

Since inception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in 1999, there has been an exponential rise in RAS in both number and complexity of surgical cases performed. The majority of these cases are gynecologic surgery in nature, with only a quarter of them labeled as general surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine if RAS in the Department of Defense (DoD) mirrors these trends.

METHODS

A total of 6,204 RAS cases from across the DoD were reviewed between 01 January 2015 and 30 September 2017 from every Military Treatment Facility (MTF) that employs a robotic surgical device (various models of the da Vinci robotic surgical system by Intuitive Surgical). Specialty, number, and surgeon were recorded for each case. These end points were also examined for trends overtime and compared to similar civilian data.

RESULTS

The number of MTFs performing robotic surgery and the number of cases performed increased significantly. An average of 373 cases per quarter-year were performed in 2015, 647 in 2016, and 708 in 2017. The number of RAS cases increased by about 10% every quarter-year during this time period. RAS was most commonly performed by general surgery in 10 of the 14 MTFs examined.

CONCLUSIONS

MTFs implemented RAS much later than the civilian world. However, since its implementation, the frequency of RAS use has increased at a faster rate in the DoD than in the civilian world. Possible reasons for this are a younger pool of surgeons in the military and less demands on cost-effective productivity, allowing these younger surgeons to focus on emerging technology rather than maximizing surgical cost efficiency. General surgery constitutes the majority of RAS cases in the DoD. It is unclear why this difference from the civilian world exists.

Current surgical practices of robotic-assisted tissue repair and reconstruction

This paper systematically reviewed and analyzed the recent publications of robotic-assisted surgeries in the field of tissue repair and reconstruction. Surgical robots can elevate skin flap more accurately and shorten the time of tissue harvest. In addition, robotic-assisted surgery has the advantage of minimal tissue trauma and thus forms minimal scar. The utilization of surgical robots reduces the occurrence of complications after oral radical tumor resection while achieving cosmetic sutures. Robotic-assisted radical mastectomy could radically remove invasive breast cancer lesions and achieve breast reconstruction in the first stage through the small incisions in the operation areas. Surgical robots enable precise microvascular anastomosis and reduce tissue edema in the surgical field. Robotic-assisted technology can help appropriately locate the target tissues at different angles during sinus and skull base surgeries and accurately place tissues during urethroplasty. The robotic-assisted technology provides a new platform for surgical innovation in the field of tissue repair and reconstruction. However, the uncertainty in the survival rate after tumor radical surgery, the increase of operating time, and the high costs are barriers for its clinical application in tissue repair and reconstructive surgery. Nevertheless, robotic-assisted technology has already demonstrated an impact on the field of tissue repair and reconstruction in a meaningful way.

When the Evidence Basis Breeds Controversies: Exploring the Value Profile of Robotic Surgery Beyond the Early Introduction Phase

This article investigates qualitatively the value profile of the da Vinci® surgical robot after almost two decades of extensive clinical use and research. We aimed to understand whether the swiftly growing body of published studies on robotic prostate surgery can now, that is, beyond an early stage, guide decisions on the acquisition, procurement, and public provision of this innovation. We explored both published studies and the perspectives of diverse stakeholders in the Netherlands. Both arenas represent conflicting, often polarised arguments on the (added) value of da Vinci surgery. What was unclear a decade ago due to lack of evidence is now unclear because of controversies about evidence. The article outlines controversial value issues and indicates the unlikelihood that awaiting more research - amid the mantra "further studies are needed" - will resolve the controversy. The study underscores multi-stakeholder deliberation to resolve controversies regarding the value of advanced medical innovations.

Utilising the Delphi Process to Develop a Proficiency-based Progression Train-the-trainer Course for Robotic Surgery Training

CONTEXT

As the role of robot-assisted surgery continues to expand, development of standardised and validated training programmes is becoming increasingly important.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance on an optimised "train-the-trainer" (TTT) structured educational programme for surgical trainers, in which delegates learn a standardised approach to training candidates in skill acquisition. We aim to describe a TTT course for robotic surgery based on the current published literature and to define the key elements within a TTT course by seeking consensus from an expert committee formed of key opinion leaders in training.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The project was carried out in phases: a systematic review of the current evidence was conducted, a face-to-face meeting was held in Philadelphia, and then an initial survey was created based on the current literature and expert opinion and sent to the committee. Thirty-two experts in training, including clinicians, academics, and industry, contributed to the Delphi process. The Delphi process underwent three rounds of survey in total. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There was 100% consensus that there was a need for a standardized TTT course in robotic surgery. A consensus was reached in multiple areas, including the following: (1) definitions and terminologies, (2) qualifications to attend, (3) course objectives, (4) precourse considerations, (5) requirement of e-learning, (6) theory and course content, and (7) measurement of outcomes and performance level verification. The resulting formulated curriculum showed good internal consistency among experts, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.90.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the Delphi methodology, we achieved an international consensus among experts to develop and reach content validation for a standardised TTT curriculum for robotic surgery training. This defined content lays the foundation for developing a proficiency-based progression model for trainers in robotic surgery. This TTT curriculum will require further validation.

PATIENT SUMMARY

As the role of robot-assisted surgery continues to expand, development of standardised and validated training programmes is becoming increasingly important. There is currently a lack of high-level evidence on how best to train trainers in robot-assisted surgery. We report a consensus view on a standardised "train-the trainer" curriculum focused on robotic surgery. It was formulated by training experts from the USA and Europe, combining current evidence for training with experts' knowledge of surgical training.

The emerging role for robotics in cholecystectomy: the dawn of a new era?

Though laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was highly criticized in its early stages, it quickly grew to become a new standard of care and has revolutionized the field of general surgery. Now emerging robotic technology is making its way into the minimally invasive arena. Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is often disparaged as a costly technology that can lead to increased operative times with outcomes that are quite similar to LC. However, this perspective is skewed as many existing studies were performed in the early phase of learning for this procedure. RC can be performed in a cost-effective manner as the volume of robotic procedures increases. In addition, improved visualization and capability to perform fluorescence cholangiography can improve the safety profile of cholecystectomy to a level that has not yet been achieved with conventional laparoscopy. Advanced simulation technology for robotic surgery, and newer single-site robotic platforms have the potential to further revolutionize this technology and lead to improved patient satisfaction. In this review, we will present current data, trends, and controversies in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.

Development of an AVF Stenosis Assessment Tool for Hemodialysis Patients Using Robotic Ultrasound System

With the aging population and lifestyle changes, the number of hemodialysis (HD) patients increases year by year. The arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the gold standard vascular access used to access the blood for HD treatment. Since the status of stenosis affects HD efficiency, current clinical practices usually use a Doppler ultrasound imaging system to assess the parameters of the stenosis, such as the degree of stenosis (DOS). Unfortunately, this is a very time-consuming task. Furthermore, it is difficult to stably maintain the ultrasound probe for a prolonged period to give doctors clearer or reproducible images. In this study, a robotic ultrasound system (RUS) with ultrasound sequential imaging analysis was designed to evaluate the DOS of the AVF. The sequential imaging analysis was capable of image smoothing and vessel boundary detection. It enabled clinicians to mark the thickness of the plaque for further processing. Finally, the system was used to reconstruct 3D models of fistulas and calculated the DOS for clinical assessment. We also designed a pressure sensing module attached to the ultrasound probe to prevent the probe from coming loose, vibrating, and exerting abnormal pressure on the skin. In the phantom test, the results showed that the error of the DOS that was calculated by RUS was less than 3%. The results of clinical trials obtained from ten patients show that the error between the RUS and clinicians' measurement was about 10% and had a highly linear correlation (R Square > 0.95). In addition, the reproducibility error was about 3% and could effectively save about 46% of the time during clinical examinations.

[Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?]

Surgery can only maintain its role in a highly competitive environment if results are continuously improved, accompanied by further reduction of the interventional trauma for patients and with justifiable costs. Significant impulse to achieve this goal was expected from minimally invasive surgery and, in particular, robotic surgery; however, a real breakthrough has not yet been achieved. Accordingly, the new strategic approach of cognitive surgery is required to optimize the provision of surgical treatment. A full scale integration of all modules utilized in the operating room (OR) into a comprehensive network and the development of systems with technical cognition are needed to upgrade the current technical environment passively controlled by the surgeon into an active collaborative support system (surgery 4.0). Only then can the true potential of minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery be exploited.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

Laparoscopy has become widely accepted as the preferred surgical approach in the management of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Once considered a relative contraindication in patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS), as surgeons have continued to gain expertise in advanced laparoscopy, minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly incorporated in the reoperative abdomen and pelvis. Although earlier studies have described conversion rates, most contemporary series evaluating the impact of PAS in laparoscopic colorectal resection have reported equivalent conversion and morbidity rates between reoperative and non-reoperative cases, and series evaluating the impact of laparoscopy in reoperative cases have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopy. The data overall highlight the importance of case selection, careful preoperative preparation and planning, and the critical role of surgeons' expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Challenges to the widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in reoperative colorectal cases include the longer learning curve and longer operative time. However, with the steady increase in adoption of minimally invasive techniques worldwide, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is likely to continue to be applied in the management of increasingly complex reoperative colorectal cases in an effort to improve patient outcomes. In the hands of experienced MIS surgeons and in carefully selected cases, laparoscopy is both safe and efficacious for reoperative procedures in the abdomen and pelvis, with measurable short-term benefits.

Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical systems have been used at a rapidly increasing rate in general surgery. Many of these procedures have been performed laparoscopically for years. In a surgical encounter, a significant portion of the total costs is associated with consumable supplies. Our hospital system has invested in a software program that can track the costs of consumable surgical supplies. We sought to determine the differences in cost of consumables with elective laparoscopic and robotic procedures for our health care organization.

METHODS

De-identified procedural cost and equipment utilization data were collected from the Surgical Profitability Compass Procedure Cost Manager System (The Advisory Board Company, Washington, DC) for our health care system for laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and inguinal hernia between the years 2013 and 2015. Outcomes were length of stay, case duration, and supply cost. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for continuous variables, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The total cost of consumable surgical supplies was significantly greater for all robotic procedures. Length of stay did not differ for fundoplication or cholecystectomy. Length of stay was greater for robotic inguinal hernia repair. Case duration was similar for cholecystectomy (84.3 robotic and 75.5 min laparoscopic, p = 0.08), but significantly longer for robotic fundoplication (197.2 robotic and 162.1 min laparoscopic, p = 0.01) and inguinal hernia repair (124.0 robotic and 84.4 min laparoscopic, p = ≪0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a significantly increased cost of general surgery procedures for our health care system when cases commonly performed laparoscopically are instead performed robotically. Our analysis is limited by the fact that we only included costs associated with consumable surgical supplies. The initial acquisition cost (over $1 million for robotic surgical system), depreciation, and service contract for the robotic and laparoscopic systems were not included in this analysis.

Adverse Events in Robotic Surgery: A Retrospective Study of 14 Years of FDA Data

BACKGROUND

Use of robotic systems for minimally invasive surgery has rapidly increased during the last decade. Understanding the causes of adverse events and their impact on patients in robot-assisted surgery will help improve systems and operational practices to avoid incidents in the future.

METHODS

By developing an automated natural language processing tool, we performed a comprehensive analysis of the adverse events reported to the publicly available MAUDE database (maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) from 2000 to 2013. We determined the number of events reported per procedure and per surgical specialty, the most common types of device malfunctions and their impact on patients, and the potential causes for catastrophic events such as patient injuries and deaths.

RESULTS

During the study period, 144 deaths (1.4% of the 10,624 reports), 1,391 patient injuries (13.1%), and 8,061 device malfunctions (75.9%) were reported. The numbers of injury and death events per procedure have stayed relatively constant (mean = 83.4, 95% confidence interval (CI), 74.2-92.7 per 100,000 procedures) over the years. Surgical specialties for which robots are extensively used, such as gynecology and urology, had lower numbers of injuries, deaths, and conversions per procedure than more complex surgeries, such as cardiothoracic and head and neck (106.3 vs. 232.9 per 100,000 procedures, Risk Ratio = 2.2, 95% CI, 1.9-2.6). Device and instrument malfunctions, such as falling of burnt/broken pieces of instruments into the patient (14.7%), electrical arcing of instruments (10.5%), unintended operation of instruments (8.6%), system errors (5%), and video/imaging problems (2.6%), constituted a major part of the reports. Device malfunctions impacted patients in terms of injuries or procedure interruptions. In 1,104 (10.4%) of all the events, the procedure was interrupted to restart the system (3.1%), to convert the procedure to non-robotic techniques (7.3%), or to reschedule it (2.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread adoption of robotic systems for minimally invasive surgery in the U.S., a non-negligible number of technical difficulties and complications are still being experienced during procedures. Adoption of advanced techniques in design and operation of robotic surgical systems and enhanced mechanisms for adverse event reporting may reduce these preventable incidents in the future.

Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss?

The role of robot-assisted surgery in children remains controversial. This article aims to distil this debate into an evidence informed decision-making taxonomy; to adopt this technology (1) now, (2) later, or (3) not at all. Robot-assistance is safe, feasible and effective in selected cases as an adjunctive tool to enhance capabilities of minimally invasive surgery, as it is known today. At present, expectations of rigid multi-arm robotic systems to deliver higher quality care are over-estimated and poorly substantiated by evidence. Such systems are associated with high costs. Further comparative effectiveness evidence is needed to define the case-mix for which robot-assistance might be indicated. It seems unlikely that we should expect compelling patient benefits when it is only the mode of minimally invasive surgery that differs. Only large higher-volume institutions that share the robot amongst multiple specialty groups are likely to be able to sustain higher associated costs with today's technology. Nevertheless, there is great potential for next-generation surgical robotics to enable better ways to treat childhood surgical diseases through less invasive techniques that are not possible today. This will demand customized technology for selected patient populations or procedures. Several prototype robots exclusively designed for pediatric use are already under development. Financial affordability must be a high priority to ensure clinical accessibility.