Robotic Cholecystectomy: Learning Curve, Advantages, and Limitations

Online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies: more harm than good?

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons use online videos to learn. However, these videos vary in content, quality, and educational value. In the setting of recent work questioning the safety of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, we aimed (1) to identify highly watched online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, (2) to determine whether these videos demonstrate suboptimal techniques, and (3) to compare videos based on platform.

METHODS

Two authors searched YouTube and a members-only Facebook group to identify highly watched videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies. Three members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons Safe Cholecystectomy Task Force then reviewed videos in random order. These three members rated each video using Sanford and Strasberg's six-point criteria for critical view of safety (CVS) scoring and the Parkland grading scale for cholecystitis. We performed regression to determine any association between Parkland grade and CVS score. We also compared scores between the YouTube and Facebook videos using a t test.

RESULTS

We identified 50 videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, including 25 from YouTube and 25 from Facebook. Of the 50 videos, six demonstrated a top-down approach. The remaining 44 videos received a mean of 2.4 of 6 points for the CVS score (SD = 1.8). Overall, 4 of the 50 videos (8%) received a passing CVS score of 5 or 6. Videos received a mean of 2.4 of 5 points for the Parkland grade (SD = 0.9). Videos on YouTube had lower CVS scores than videos on Facebook (1.9 vs. 2.8, respectively), though this difference was not significant (p = 0.09). By regression, there was no association between Parkland grade and CVS score (p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Publicly available and closed-group online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy demonstrated inadequate dissection and may be of limited educational value. Future work should center on introducing measures to identify and feature videos with high-quality techniques most useful to surgeons.

Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience

AIMS

To evaluate the safety profile of robotic cholecystectomy performed within the United Kingdom (UK) Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) training programme.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data from eleven centres participating in the UK Robotic HPB training programme was conducted. All adult patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease or gallbladder polyp were considered. Bile duct injury, conversion to open procedure, conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, 30-day re-admission, and post-operative complications were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were included. The median age was 53 (IQR 65-41) years and the majority (72.7%; 436/600) were female. The main indications for robotic cholecystectomy were biliary colic (55.5%, 333/600), cholecystitis (18.8%, 113/600), gallbladder polyps (7.7%, 46/600), and pancreatitis (6.2%, 37/600). The median length of stay was 0 (IQR 0-1) days. Of the included patients, 88.5% (531/600) were discharged on the day of procedure with 30-day re-admission rate of 5.5% (33/600). There were no bile duct injuries and the rate of conversion to open was 0.8% (5/600) with subtotal cholecystectomy rate of 0.8% (5/600).

CONCLUSION

The current study confirms that robotic cholecystectomy can be safely implemented to routine practice with a low risk of bile duct injury, low bile leak rate, low conversion to open surgery, and low need for subtotal cholecystectomy.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Three-arm robotic cholecystectomy: a novel, cost-effective method of delivering and learning robotic surgery in upper GI surgery

Cholecystectomy is one of the commonest performed surgeries worldwide. With the introduction of robotic surgery, the numbers of robot-assisted cholecystectomies has risen over the past decade. Despite the proven use of this procedure as a training operation for those surgeons adopting robotics, the consumable cost of routine robotic cholecystectomy can be difficult to justify in the absence of evidence favouring or disputing this approach. Here, we describe a novel method for performing a robot-assisted cholecystectomy using a "three-arm" technique on the newer, 4th generation, da Vinci system. Whilst maintaining the ability to perform precision dissection, this method reduces the consumable cost by 46%. The initial series of 109 procedures proves this procedure to be safe, feasible, trainable and time efficient.

Association of Upper GI Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) Delphi consensus recommendations on the adoption of robotic upper GI surgery

BACKGROUND

The adoption of robotic platforms in upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery is expanding rapidly. The absence of centralised guidance and governance in adoption of new surgical technologies may lead to an increased risk of patient harm.

METHODS

Surgeon stakeholders participated in a Delphi consensus process following a national open-invitation in-person meeting on the adoption of robotic upper GI surgery. Consensus agreement was deemed met if >80% agreement was achieved.

RESULTS

Following two rounds of Delphi voting, 25 statements were agreed on covering the training process, governance and good practice for surgeons' adoption in upper GI surgery. One statement failed to achieve consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are intended to support surgeons, patients and health systems in the adoption of robotics in upper GI surgery.

Does Surgeon Experience Correlate with Crowd-Sourced Skill Assessment in Robotic Bariatric Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) rubric provides a measure of skill in robotic surgery. We hypothesize surgery performed by more experienced operators will be associated with higher GEARS scores.

METHOD

Patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy from 2016 to 2020 were analyzed. Three groups were defined by time in practice: less than 5, between 5 and 15, and more than 15 years. Continuous variables were compared with ANOVA and multivariable regression was performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen operators performing 154 cases were included. More experienced surgeons had higher GEARS scores and shorter operative times. On multivariable regression, operative time (P = 0.027), efficiency (P = .022), depth perception (P = 0.033), and bimanual dexterity (P = 0.047) were associated with experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In our video-based assessment (VBA) model, operative time and several GEARS subcomponent scores were associated with surgical experience. Further studies should determine the association between these metrics and surgical outcomes.

Skill transference and learning curves in novice learners: a randomized comparison of robotic and laparoscopic platforms

BACKGROUND

While well-established protocols direct laparoscopic training, there remains a relative paucity of guidelines for robotic education. Furthermore, it is unknown how exposure to one platform influences trainees' proficiency in the other. This study aimed to compare and quantify (1) learning curves and (2) transference of skill between the two modalities in novice learners.

METHODS

Thirty pre-clinical medical students were randomized into two groups. One group performed the peg-transfer task using the robot first, followed by laparoscopy, while the other group performed the same task laparoscopically first. Participants completed five repetitions with each methodology. Participants were timed and errors were recorded. We hypothesized that laparoscopic experience with the peg-transfer task would assist in completing the task robotically, and there would be a higher degree of skill transference from the laparoscopic to robotic platform.

RESULTS

Peg-transfer task completion was consistently faster and more accurate with the robot compared to laparoscopy (p < 0.01). We observed a positive transference of skill from the laparoscopic to robotic platform. However, exposure to the robot-hindered students' ability to perform the task laparoscopically, evidenced by significantly increased time and errors when compared with baseline laparoscopic performance (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

These findings encourage surgical residency programs to treat robotic and laparoscopic training as discrete entities and consider their unique learning curves and skill transference when designing an efficient curriculum. While these effects are observed in novices, future directions include uncovering the trends among resident trainees and practicing surgeons.

Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease. In the context of the increasing uptake of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomy has seen a substantial growth over the past decades. Despite this, a formal assessment of the evidence for this practice remains elusive and a randomised controlled trial is yet to be performed. This paper reviews the evidence to date for robotic multiport cholecystectomy compared to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. This systematic review was performed conducted using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases; in line with the PRISMA guideline. All articles that compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The studies were assessed with regards to operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and complications. Fourteen studies were included, describing a total of 3002 patients. There was no difference in operative blood loss, complication rates, incidence of bile duct injury or length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The operative time for robotic cholecystectomy was longer, whereas the risk of conversion to open surgery was lower. There was marked variation in definitions of measured outcomes, and most studies lacked data on training and quality assessment, leading to substantial heterogeneity of the data. Available evidence on multiport robotic cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is scarce and the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Results suggest longer operating time for robotic cholecystectomy, although many studies included the learning curve period. Postoperative recovery and complications were similar in both groups.

Learning Curve of Multiport Robotic Cholecystectomy: A Cumulative Sum Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To establish the learning curve of multiport robotic cholecystectomy (MRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRC was performed. A cumulative sum analysis helped define the learning curve through the evaluation of skin-to-skin (STS) time and postoperative complications rate. Direct comparison of variables was conducted between the phases.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-five MRC cases were included. Average STS and console times were 50.6 and 29.9 minutes, respectively. Cumulative sum analysis established 3 phases with inflection points at cases 84th and 134th. A significant decrease in STS time was observed between the phases. Middle and late phases encompassed patients with higher comorbidities. Two conversions to open were recorded in the early phase. Postoperative complication rates were comparable among the early (2.5%), middle (6.8%), and late (5.6%) phases ( P = 0.482).

CONCLUSION

A steady decrease in STS time was observed across the 3 different phases established at the 84th and 134th patients.

A review of the first 100 robotic cholecystectomies with a new cart-based surgical robot at a tertiary care centre

Background

Robotic cholecystectomy appears to be a natural evolution of the well-established gold standard procedure for gallstones, namely laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Akin to the early days of laparoscopy, robotic surgery is associated with a learning curve. We present our experiences in adapting to robotic surgery after the first 100 robotic cholecystectomies at a minimal access surgery tertiary care hospital.

Material and Methods

The first consecutive 100 robotic cholecystectomies performed by a single surgeon on the Versius robotic surgical system (CMR Surgical, UK) were included in the study. Patients unwilling to give consent and complex pathologies such as gangrene, perforation and cholecystoenteric fistulas were excluded from the study. Operative time, robotic setup time, incidence and indication for conversion to manual (laparoscopic) procedure were recorded while subjective assessment of interruptions due to machine alarms and errors was made. All data were compared between the first 50 and last 50 procedures.

Results

Our data revealed a gradual reduction in operative time from 28.53 min for the first 50 procedures to 22.06 min for the last 50 procedures. An improvement in draping and setup times was also noted, reducing from 7.74 to 5.14 min and 7.96 to 5.32 min, respectively. There were no conversions during the last 50 procedures, though the first 50 procedures resulted in 3 conversions to a laparoscopic procedure. In addition, we also noted a subjective reduction in the incidence of machine errors and alarms as we became more versed with the robotic system.

Conclusion

Our single-centre experience indicates that newer modular robotic systems present a rapid and natural progression for experienced surgeons looking to venture into robotic surgery. The well-established advantages of robotic surgery in the form of enhanced ergonomics, three-dimensional vision and improved dexterity are validated as indispensable aids in a surgeon's armamentarium. Our initial experience reveals that robotic surgery for more common surgical procedures such as cholecystectomies will be rapidly accepted, safe and effective. There is a need to innovate and expand the range of instrumentation and energy devices available.

A systematic review of robot-assisted cholecystectomy to examine the quality of reporting in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines.

METHODS

Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less.

CONCLUSION

The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation.

Learning curve analysis of multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes and learning curve of multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy.

METHODS

Eighty-eight patients were identified who underwent multiport robot-assisted surgery for hysterectomy. A retrospective analysis was performed. The cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to investigate the learning curve in surgical proficiency by analyzing total operative, docking, and console times.

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 51 years. In addition, the median operative time was 120.5 min (range 56-344 min). The most common indication for surgery was myoma (33.0%). The median estimated blood loss was 30 mL (range 5-200 mL). There was no conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery. No transfusion was required, and only one complication including umbilical incisional hernia was reported. A tendency of decline in total operative time following the first 23 cases was found. The CUSUM graph for total operative time indicated the generation of three distinct performance phases: learning (n = 23), competence (n = 36), and mastery (n = 29). The median docking time was 3 min (range 1-10 min) and median console time was 70 min (range 24-298 min).

CONCLUSION

The multiport robot-assisted surgery is an easy and safe procedure with minimal postoperative complications and can be quickly learned. The learning curve was 23 cases to significantly decrease the operative time.

Robotic cholecystectomy using Senhance robotic platform versus laparoscopic conventional cholecystectomy: a propensity score analysis

INTRODUCTION

Our study objective was to evaluate differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) using Senhance robotic platform vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective case - matched analysis was performed for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy from November 2018 to November 2019. RC cases were matched to LC. RC was performed using Senhance robotic platform. Propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 (RC: LC) was performed. The groups were matched according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI). All procedures were performed by two same experienced robotic surgeons at Klaipeda University Hospital (O.D. and V.E.). Age, BMI, operative time, blood loss and length of hospital stay were collected and analysed between those patient groups.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients underwent RC or LC. There were no statistical differences between groups in concern of length of hospital stay, blood loss or complications. There were no bile duct injuries in either group, no intraoperative complications, no conversions either RC to LC or LC to open surgery. One patient in robotic group was reoperated on postoperative day 5 regarding sub-hepatic haematoma. The only statistical significance was in operative time (p < .05) which was longer in RC group. Median docking time was 12 min (range 5-23).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic cholecystectomy using Senhance robotic platform appears to be safe in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy might be feasible in gaining robotic surgery skills.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Single-Port Robotic Cholecystectomy Using the da Vinci SP® Platform

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, first introduced in 1995, features acceptable cosmetic outcomes and postoperative pain control. The outcomes of single-port cholecystectomy by laparoscopy and robots were recently examined in many studies owing to surgeon and patient preference for minimally invasive surgery. A next-level da Vinci robotic platform was recently released. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) using the da Vinci SP® system.

Methods

In this retrospective observational single-center study, we analyzed the medical records of 304 patients who underwent RC between March 1, 2017 and May 31, 2021.

Results

Of the 304 patients, the da Vinci Xi® (Xi) was used in 159 and the da Vinci SP® (SP) was used in 145. The mean operation time was 45.7 mins in the SP group versus 49.8 mins in the Xi group. The mean docking time of the SP group was shorter than that of the Xi group (5.7 min vs 8.8 min; p = 0.024). The mean immediate postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) score was 4.0 in the SP group and 4.3 in the Xi group, showing a significant difference (p = 0.003). A separate analysis of only patients with acute cholecystitis treated with the da Vinci SP® showed that the immediate postoperative NRS score in the acute group was higher than that in the nonacute group.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated acceptable results of single-site cholecystectomy using da Vinci SP®. Thus, pure single-port RC using the da Vinci SP® for various benign gallbladder diseases may be an excellent treatment option.

Learning curves of robot-assisted pedicle screw fixations based on the cumulative sum test

BACKGROUND

In robot-assisted (RA) spine surgery, the relationship between the surgical outcome and the learning curve remains to be evaluated.

AIM

To analyze the learning curve of RA pedicle screw fixation (PSF) through fitting the operation time curve based on the cumulative summation method.

METHODS

RA PSFs that were initially completed by two surgeons at the Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from July 2016 to March 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. Based on the cumulative sum of the operation time, the learning curves of the two surgeons were drawn and fit to polynomial curves. The learning curve was divided into the early and late stages according to the shape of the fitted curve. The operation time and screw accuracy were compared between the stages.

RESULTS

The turning point of the learning curves from Surgeons A and B appeared in the 18^th and 17^th cases, respectively. The operation time [150 (128, 188) min vs 120 (105, 150) min, P = 0.002] and the screw accuracy (87.50% vs 96.30%, P = 0.026) of RA surgeries performed by Surgeon A were significantly improved after he completed 18 cases. In the case of Surgeon B, the operation time (177.35 ± 28.18 min vs 150.00 ± 34.64 min, P = 0.024) was significantly reduced, and the screw accuracy (91.18% vs 96.15%, P = 0.475) was slightly improved after the surgeon completed 17 RA surgeries.

CONCLUSION

After completing 17 to 18 cases of RA PSFs, surgeons can pass the learning phase of RA technology. The operation time is reduced afterward, and the screw accuracy shows a trend of improvement.

Inductive learning of answer set programs for autonomous surgical task planning

The quality of robot-assisted surgery can be improved and the use of hospital resources can be optimized by enhancing autonomy and reliability in the robot’s operation. Logic programming is a good choice for task planning in robot-assisted surgery because it supports reliable reasoning with domain knowledge and increases transparency in the decision making. However, prior knowledge of the task and the domain is typically incomplete, and it often needs to be refined from executions of the surgical task(s) under consideration to avoid sub-optimal performance. In this paper, we investigate the applicability of inductive logic programming for learning previously unknown axioms governing domain dynamics. We do so under answer set semantics for a benchmark surgical training task, the ring transfer. We extend our previous work on learning the immediate preconditions of actions and constraints, to also learn axioms encoding arbitrary temporal delays between atoms that are effects of actions under the event calculus formalism. We propose a systematic approach for learning the specifications of a generic robotic task under the answer set semantics, allowing easy knowledge refinement with iterative learning. In the context of 1000 simulated scenarios, we demonstrate the significant improvement in performance obtained with the learned axioms compared with the hand-written ones; specifically, the learned axioms address some critical issues related to the plan computation time, which is promising for reliable real-time performance during surgery.

A cost analysis of two- versus three-instrument robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with mesh: time is money

Equipment expenses and operating times can lead to higher costs with robotic surgery. We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2- vs. 3-instrument (2i vs. 3i) approach to robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. We conducted a retrospective study of 172 patients, with 86 patients in each group. Procedure cost, operative time, morbidity, length of stay, readmission rate, and hernia recurrence at 90 days were compared. Statistical significance was assigned to p < 0.05. No significant differences in preoperative variables nor in postoperative outcomes were identified. Mean operative time was 6 min longer in the 2i group and this approach cost $300 less. The 2i approach was cost-effective for operating room (OR) costs of less than $50 per minute. Surgeon efficiency and OR dollar-per-minute value influence the potential for cost savings with fewer instruments in robotic herniorrhaphy. There is no difference in outcomes when fewer instruments are used.

The Early (2009-2017) Experience With Robot-assisted Cholecystectomy in New York State

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine real-life patterns of care and patient outcomes associated with robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) in New York State (NYS).

BACKGROUND

Although robotic assistance may offer some technological advantages, RACs are associated with higher procedural costs and longer operating times compared to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs). Evidence on long-term patient outcomes after RAC from large population-based datasets remains limited and inconsistent.

METHODS

Using NYS inpatient and ambulatory surgery data from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (2009-2017), we conducted bivariate and multivariate analyses to examine patterns of utilization, complications, and secondary procedures following cholecystectomies.

RESULTS

Among 299,306 minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed in NYS between 2009 and 2017, one thousand one hundred eighteen (0.4%) were robot-assisted. Compared to those undergoing LC, RAC patients were older, travelled further for surgery, and were more likely to have public insurance and preoperative comorbidities. RAC versus LC patients were more significantly likely to have conversions to open procedure (4.9% vs 2.8%), bile duct injuries (1.3% vs 0.4%), and major reconstructive interventions (0.6% vs 0.1%), longer median length of stay (3 vs 1 day), readmissions (7.3% vs 4.4%), and higher 12-month post-index surgery hospital charges (P < 0.01 for all estimates). Other postoperative complications decreased over time for LC but remained unchanged for RAC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving RAC in NYS experienced higher rates of complications compared to LC patients. Addressing patient-, surgeon-, and system-level factors associated with intra/postoperative complications and applying recently promulgated safe cholecystectomy strategies coupled with advanced imaging modalities like fluorescence cholangiography to RAC may improve patient outcomes.

Functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: A review of literature

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy has steadily gained wider acceptance among urologists compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy has shown comparable perioperative and oncologic outcomes compared with open radical cystectomy. Nevertheless, data about the functional outcomes and quality of life after robot-assisted radical cystectomy remain limited. We sought to review the literature and describe urinary, sexual and bowel functions after robot-assisted radical cystectomy in addition to mental health and health-related quality of life. Despite limitations of the available literature, data suggests that functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy are comparable to open radical cystectomy. However, more studies utilizing standardized definitions are required.

Low long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various surgical approaches are available for cholecystectomy, but their long-term outcomes, such as incidence of incisional hernia, are largely unknown. Our aim was to investigate the long-term incidence of incisional hernia after cholecystectomy for different surgical approaches.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020178906). Three databases were searched for original studies on long-term complications of cholecystectomy with n > 40 and follow-up ≥6 months for incisional hernia. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane "risk of bias" tool. Meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia after 6 and 12 months was conducted when possible.

RESULTS

We included 89 studies. Of these, 77 reported on multiport or single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Twelve studies reported on open cholecystectomy and 4 studies on robotic cholecystectomy. Weighted mean incidence proportion of incisional hernia after multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 0.3% (95% confidence interval 0-0.6) after 6 months and 0.2% after 12 months (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.3). Weighted mean incidence of incisional hernia 12 months postoperatively was 1.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-2.6) after open cholecystectomy and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 0.4-8.6) after single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No meta-analysis could be conducted for robotic cholecystectomy, but incidences ranged from 0% to 16.7%.

CONCLUSION

We found low 1-year incidences of incisional hernia after multiport laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy, whereas risks of incisional hernia were considerably higher after single-incision laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy.

The TransEnterix European Patient Registry for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Procedures in Urology, Abdominal, Thoracic, and Gynecologic Surgery ("TRUST")

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery was first introduced in the mid-1980s, and at the end of the '90s, the da Vinci® System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) was introduced in Europe and held a monopoly for years afterward. In 2016, Senhance™ digital laparoscopic platform (TransEnterix Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina) came to the market. This new platform is based on laparoscopic movements and is designed for laparoscopic surgeons. This study shows the surgical outcomes of patients after different visceral, colorectal, gynecological, and urological surgical procedures done with the Senhance™ digital laparoscopic platform with a focus on safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population consists of 871 patients who underwent robotic surgery with the Senhance™ platform. The most common procedures were hernia repairs (unilateral and bilateral), cholecystectomies, and prostatectomies. The procedures were performed in five centers in Europe between February 2017 and July 2020 by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

220 (25.3 %) out of 871 patients had a unilateral hernia repair, 70 (8.0%) a bilateral hernia repair, 159 (18.3%) underwent a cholecystectomy, and 168 (19.3%) a prostatectomy. The other procedures included visceral, colorectal, and gynecological surgery procedures. The median docking time was 7.46 minutes for the four most common procedures. The duration of surgery varied from 32 to 313 minutes, the average time was 114.31 minutes. Adverse events were rare overall. There were 48 (5.5 %) adverse events out of 871 patients, 24 of them (2.8 % of all cases) were severe. Out of all 24 severe adverse events, five events (20.8%) were likely related to the robot, 17 events (70.8%) were unlikely related to the robot, and two events (8.3%) could not be categorized. Regarding complications following unilateral hernia repairs, data from 212 patients was available. Thirteen (6.1%) complications occurred, and six of those (2.8%) were serious. Out of 68 patients with a bilateral hernia repair, six patients (8.8%) developed complications, three of which were severe (4.4%). The complication rate was 2.8% in the patients following a cholecystectomy (4/144); two of them serious. After prostatectomy, six out of 141 patients (4.3 %) had complications; one serious (0.7%) No mortality was observed. Data about unplanned conversions to laparoscopic surgery could be collected from 761 patients which is a rate of 3.7%. There were 12 conversions out of 760 procedures to open surgery (1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our series shows these procedures are safe and reproducible. The findings suggest that the surgical results after robotic surgery with the Senhance™ system are promising. Long-term data regarding complication rates should be the subject of future studies.

Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in Veteran patients

The robotic platform for cholecystectomy has been extensively studied in comparison to its laparoscopic counterpart with acceptable outcomes. However, wide acceptance of a robotic approach to cholecystectomy has been limited by increased operative room (OR) times and substantially higher cost. This is a single-institution retrospective review of Veteran patients presenting for elective laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) cholecystectomies for benign biliary disease at the Dallas VA Medical Center. The primary goal was to interrogate 30-day morbidity as well as operative room times, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and conversion rates. The entire cohort included 612 patients (age = 55.1 ± 12.9 years, men = 77.9%, BMI = 31.2 ± 6.3 kg/m²) undergoing elective cholecystectomy (LC = 441 and RC = 171) for benign biliary disease (biliary colic = 78.8%, history of biliary pancreatitis = 7.8%, history of cholecystitis = 5.7%). Univariate analysis comparing LC and RC showed the two groups to be of similar age (55.4 ± 12.4 vs. 54.4 ± 14.2 years; p = 0.4), male gender (79.4% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.2), and BMI (31.1 ± 6.4 vs. 31.5 ± 6.3 kg/m²; p = 0.5). Except for dyslipidemia (LC = 48.3% vs. RC = 36.8%; p = 0.01), both groups had the same rate of co-morbid conditions. ASA level III and IV (LC = 60.1 vs. RC = 69.0%, p = 0.04) was higher in the RC group. Both groups underwent surgical intervention for similar indications (biliary colic LC = 80.5% vs. RC = 74.3; p = 0.1). Hospital LOS (1.7 ± 3.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.9 days, p < 0.001), EBL (32.3 ± 52.3 vs. 17.0 ± 43.1; p = 0.001), and conversion to open (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.001) were all superior with the robotic platform. Thirty-day overall morbidity (9.8% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.4), skin-to-skin OR time (84.5 ± 33.5 vs. 88.0 ± 35.3 min, p = 0.2), and total OR time (129.2 ± 36.8 vs. 129.7 ± 39.7, p = 0.9) were similar between the LC and RC groups. Despite being older and having more comorbidities, Veteran patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy experienced equivalent OR time and a moderate improvement in conversion rate, EBL, and hospital LOS compared to those undergoing conventional laparoscopy, therein demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the robotic platform for this patient population.

Should Robotic Surgery Training Be Prioritized in General Surgery Residency? A Survey of Fellowship Program Director Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery has been increasingly incorporated into the subspecialties of colorectal (CRS), minimally invasive/bariatric (MIS/Bar), and surgical oncology/hepatobiliary (SO/HPB) surgery, yet its impact on fellowship applicant evaluation and contribution to postresidency training remains undefined. The aim of our study was to evaluate how robotic training during General Surgery (GS) residency affects an applicant's competitiveness from the perspective of fellowship programs.

DESIGN

A web-based survey was sent to all 235 accredited fellowship programs in CRS (n = 66), MIS/Bar (n = 122), and SO/HPB (n = 47) within the United States and Canada. Fellowship programs were queried on the import of robotic surgery training during GS residency and its impact on an applicant's match potential.

RESULTS

Of 235 programs, 155 (66%) responded to the survey - 42 (63.6%) CRS, 87 (71.3%) MIS/Bar, and 26 (55.3%) SO/HPB. Of responding programs, 147 (94.8%) have a surgical robot at their institution, and 131 (84.5%) have fellows actively operating at the console. Overall, 107 (69%) fellowship program directors rated robotic training during surgery residency as "somewhat" or "very" important for residents seeking fellowship. While 95 (61.3%) programs said GS residents should not prioritize robotic training, 60 (38.7%) felt they should, and 38 (24.5%) were more likely to rank an applicant higher if they had some console exposure. Still, 69.7% (n = 108) of programs expect no robotic experience for incoming fellows.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that most fellowship programs have low expectations of robotic experience for incoming fellows. Still, it is notable that nearly a quarter of programs would rank an applicant more highly if they had robotic console exposure. While these findings appear reassuring to residents with limited access to robotic training, residency programs should be alerted to the growing importance of robotic exposure.

Cholecystectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system from Korea: the first clinical study

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the newly developed Revo-i (Meerecompany, Yongin, Republic of Korea) robotic surgical system during robot-assisted cholecystectomy. This prospective, phase I clinical study involved 15 patients with gallbladder-related disease. The primary outcome evaluated was the intraoperative safety of the Revo-i; the secondary outcomes measured were the 30-day postoperative complications and patient satisfaction with the Revo-i's performance. Between August 17 and December 23, 2016, we performed 15 robot-assisted cholecystectomies. The operations were successfully completed, without any conversions to open or laparoscopic approaches. The mean patient age (53.07 years), mean operative time (115.3 ± 17.31 min [± standard deviation]), docking time (10.6 ± 3.16 min), console time (49.7 ± 15.41 min), actual dissection time (33.1 ± 10.53 min), and estimated blood loss (3.33 ± 6.17 mL) were determined. There were no intra- or postoperative complications, including gallbladder perforations. The mean hospital stay was 2.0 ± 1.00 days. Most patients reported satisfaction with the Revo-i's performance. Performing robot-assisted cholecystectomies using the Revo-i is feasible and safe. This report describes the first clinical study of the Revo-i robotic surgical system in human patients.

Initial Experience With a New Robotic Surgical System for Cholecystectomy

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been the gold standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis for more than 3 decades. Robotic techniques are gaining traction in surgery, and recently, the Senhance^™ robotic system was introduced. The system offers advantages over other robotic systems such as improved ergonomics, haptic feedback, eye tracking, and usability of standard laparoscopic trocars and reusable instruments. The Senhance was evaluated to understand the feasibility, benefits, and drawbacks of its use in cholecystectomy. Study Design. A prospectively maintained database of the first 20 patients undergoing cholecystectomy with the Senhance was reviewed at a single hospital. Data including operative time, console time, set up time, and adverse events were collected, with clinical outcome and operative time as primary outcome measures. A cohort of 20 patients having laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by the same surgeon was used as a comparator group. Results. The 2 groups had comparable demographic data (age, sex, and body mass index). In the Senhance group, 19 of the 20 procedures (95%) were completed robotically. The median (interquartile range) total operating, docking, and console times were 86.5 (60.5-106.5), 11.5 (9-13), and 30.8 (23.5-35) minutes, respectively. In the laparoscopic group, the median (interquartile range) operating time was 31.5 (26-41) minutes. Postoperatively, only one patient had a surgical complication, namely a wound infection treated with antibiotics. Conclusion. Our results suggest that Senhance-assisted cholecystectomy is safe, feasible, and effective, but currently has longer operative times. Further prospective and randomized trials are required to determine whether this approach can offer any other benefits over other minimally invasive surgical techniques.

Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A propensity matched analysis

BACKGROUND

As robotic surgery becomes more ubiquitous, determining clinical benefit is necessary to justify the cost and time investment required to become proficient. We hypothesized that robotic cholecystectomy would be associated with improved clinical outcomes but also increased cost as compared with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic cholecystectomy at a single academic hospital between 2007 and 2017 were identified using an institutional clinical data repository. Patients were stratified by operative approach (robotic versus laparoscopic) for comparison and propensity score matched 1:10 based on relevant comorbidities and demographics. Categorical variables were analyzed by the χ² test and continuous variables using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 3,255 patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period. We observed no differences in demographics or body mass index, but greater rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and gastroesophageal reflux disease were present in the laparoscopic group. After matching (n = 106 robotic, n = 1,060 laparoscopic), there were no differences in preoperative comorbidities. Patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy had lesser durations of stay (robotic: 0.1 ± 0.7 versus laparoscopic: 0.8 ± 1.9, P < .0001) and lesser 90-day readmission rates (robotic: 0% [0], laparoscopic: 4.1% [43], P = 0.035); however, both operative and hospital costs were greater compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic cholecystectomy is associated with lesser duration of stay and lesser readmission rate within 90 days of the index operation, but also greater operative duration and hospital cost compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hospitals and surgeons need to consider the improved clinical outcomes but also the monetary and time investment required before pursuing robotic cholecystectomy.

Predictors of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

The advent of robotic-assisted surgery has added an additional decision point in the treatment of inguinal hernias. The goal of this study was to identify the patient, surgeon, and hospital demographic predictors of robotic inguinal hernia repair (IHR).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 102,241 IHRs (1096 robotic and 101,145 laparoscopic) from 2010 through 2015 with data collected in the Premier Hospital Database. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of receiving a robotic IHR was calculated for each of several demographic factors using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The rate of robotic IHR increased from 2010 through 2015. Age <65 y and Charlson comorbidity index were not predictors of a robotic IHR. Females were more likely to receive a robotic IHR (OR 1.69, confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.05, P < 0.0001). Compared with white patients, black patients were more likely (OR 1.33, CI 1.06-1.68, P = 0.0138), and other race patients were less likely (OR 0.47, CI 0.38-0.58, P < 0.0001) to receive a robotic IHR. Compared with Medicare insurance, patients with all other types of insurance were more likely to receive a robotic IHR (OR > 1.00, lower limit of CI > 1.00, P < 0.05). Higher volume surgeons were less likely to perform robotic IHR (OR < 1.00, upper limit of CI < 1.00, P < 0.05). Nonteaching (OR 1.81, CI 1.53-2.13, P < 0.0001), larger (OR > 1.00, lower limit of CI > 1.00, P < 0.05), and rural (OR 1.27, CI 1.03-1.57, P = 0.025) hospitals were more likely to perform robotic IHR. Significant regional variation in the rate of robotic IHR was identified (OR > 1.00, lower limit of CI > 1.00, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of robotic IHR is increasing exponentially. This study found that female gender, black race, insurance other than Medicare, lower surgeon annual volume, larger hospital size, nonteaching hospital status, rural hospital location, and hospital region were predictors of robotic IHR.

An Update on Technical Aspects of Cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has revolutionized the field of surgery, and is currently the gold standard in the treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. The goal of every laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be attainment of the critical view of safety before cutting the cystic duct and artery to reduce the risk of bile duct injury. Open cholecystectomy is most commonly performed when laparoscopic cholecystectomy is converted to open or when laparoscopic cholecystectomy is contraindicated. Robotic cholecystectomy is a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and follows the same basic operative principles.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery is still debatable. Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopic repair. We performed a comprehensive cost-analysis comparison between the two approaches for evaluation of their cost-effectiveness in a large healthcare system in the Western United States.

METHODS

Health records in 32 hospitals were queried for procedural costs of inguinal hernia repairs between January 2015 and March 2017. Elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were included. Cost calculations were done using a utilization-based costing model. Total cost included: fixed cost, which comprises medical device and personnel costs, and variable cost, which comprises disposables and reusable instruments costs. Other outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), conversion to open, and operative times. Statistics were done using t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 2405 cases, 734 robotic-assisted (633 Primary: 101 recurrent) and 1671 laparoscopic (1471 Primary: 200 recurrent), were included. The average total cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted group ($5517) compared to the laparoscopic group ($3269). However, the average laparoscopic variable cost ($1105) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the robotic-assisted cost ($933). Whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for LOS and conversion to open, average operative times were significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias matched the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has a significantly higher cost and significantly longer operative times, compared to the laparoscopic approach. The study has shown that only fixed cost contributes to the cost difference between the two approaches. Medical device cost plus the longer operative times are the main factors driving the cost difference. Laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is more cost-effective compared to a robotic-assisted approach.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy: comparison of clinical outcome and the learning curves in relation to surgeon experience in a community teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the experience of two surgeons who have different laparoscopic skills and case volume, with single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) and evaluate their learning curves.

METHODS

All SSRCs performed between March 2013 and April 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided among two surgeons based on the surgeon's level of laparoscopic skills and case volume. Surgeon 1 had experience in advanced laparoscopy while surgeon 2 had basic laparoscopic skills. Patients' demographic data, intraoperative and short-term postoperative results were assessed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 102 patients for surgeon 1 and 15 patients for surgeon 2. There were no major or minor complications in either cohort. Operative time was significantly longer for surgeon 2, conversion to laparoscopy rate was 4% for surgeon 1 compared to 20% for surgeon 2, P = 0.044, which is statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is an easy and safe procedure that can be quickly learned and performed in a reproducible manner by surgeons with experienced laparoscopic skills and greater case volume.

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.

[Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery. German version]

Robot-assisted hepatobiliary surgery has been steadily growing in recent years. It represents an alternative to the open and laparoscopic approaches in selected patients. Endowristed instruments and enhanced visualization provide important advantages in terms of selective bleeding control, microsuturing, and dissection. Cholecystectomies and minor hepatectomies are being performed with comparable results to open and laparoscopic surgery. Even complex procedures, such as major and extended hepatectomies, can have excellent outcomes, in expert hands. The addition of indocyanine green fluorescence provides an additional advantage for recognition of the vascular and biliary anatomy. Future innovations will allow for expanding its use and indications. Robotic surgery has become a very important component of modern minimally invasive surgery and the development of new robotic technology will facilitate a broader adoption of this technique.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy and robotics training: should we start in the junior years?

BACKGROUND

It has become increasingly important to expose surgical residents to robotic surgery as its applications continue to expand. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) is an excellent introductory case to robotics. Resident involvement in SSRC is known to be feasible. Here, we sought to determine whether it is safe to introduce SSRC to junior residents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 98 SSRC cases were performed by general surgery residents between August 2015 and August 2016. Cases were divided into groups based on resident level: second- and third-years (juniors) versus fourth- and fifth-years (seniors). Patient age, gender, race, body mass index, and comorbidities were recorded. The number of prior laparoscopic cholecystectomies completed by participating residents was noted. Outcomes including operative time, console time, rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy, and complication rate were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Juniors performed 54 SSRC cases, whereas seniors performed 44. There were no significant differences in patient age, gender, race, body mass index, or comorbidities between the two groups. Juniors had less experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was no significant difference in mean operative time (92.7 min versus 98.0 min, P = 0.254), console time (48.7 min versus 50.8 min, P = 0.639), or complication rate (3.7% versus 2.3%, P = 0.68) between juniors and seniors.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is an excellent way to introduce general surgery residents to robotics. This study shows that with attending supervision, SSRC is feasible and safe for both junior and senior residents with very low complication rates and no adverse effect on operative time.

Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery

Current healthcare economic evaluations are based only on the perspective of a single stakeholder to the healthcare delivery process. A true value-based decision incorporates all of the outcomes that could be impacted by a single episode of surgical care. We define the value proposition for robotic surgery using a stakeholder model incorporating the interests of all groups participating in the provision of healthcare services: patients, surgeons, hospitals and payers. One of the developing and expanding fields that could benefit the most from a complete value-based analysis is robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. While initial robot purchasing costs are high, the benefits over laparoscopic surgery are considerable. Performing a literature search we found a total of 18 economic evaluations for robotic HPB surgery. We found a lack of evaluations that were carried out from a perspective that incorporates all of the impacts of a single episode of surgical care and that included a comprehensive hospital cost assessment. For distal pancreatectomies, the two most thorough examinations came to conflicting results regarding total cost savings compared to laparoscopic approaches. The most thorough pancreaticoduodenectomy evaluation found non-significant savings for total hospital costs. Robotic hepatectomies showed no cost savings over laparoscopic and only modest savings over open techniques. Lastly, robotic cholecystectomies were found to be more expensive than the gold-standard laparoscopic approach. Existing cost accounting data associated with robotic HPB surgery is incomplete and unlikely to reflect the state of this field in the future. Current data combines the learning curves for new surgical procedures being undertaken by HPB surgeons with costs derived from a market dominated by a single supplier of robotic instruments. As a result, the value proposition for stakeholders in this process cannot be defined. In order to solve this problem, future studies must incorporate (I) quality of life, survival, and return to independent function alongside data such as (II) intent-to-treat analysis of minimally-invasive surgery accounting for conversions to open, (III) surgeon and institution experience and operative time as surrogates for the learning curve; and (IV) amortization and maintenance costs as well as direct costs of disposables and instruments.

Costs and quality of life of small-incision open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy - an expertise-based randomised controlled trial

Background

Health care providers need solid evidence based data on cost differences between alternative surgical procedures for common surgical disorders. We aimed to compare small-incision open cholecystectomy (SIOC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) concerning costs and health-related quality of life using data from an expertise-based randomised controlled trial.

Methods

Patients scheduled for cholecystectomy were assigned to undergo LC or SIOC performed by surgeons in two different expert groups. Total costs were calculated in USD. Reusable instruments were assumed for the cost analysis. Quality of life was measured using the EuroQol 5-D 3-L (EQ 5-D-3L), at five postoperative time points and calculated to Area Under Curve (AUC) for 1 year postoperatively. Two hospitals participated in the trial, which included both emergency and elective surgery.

Results

Of 477 patients that underwent a cholecystectomy during the study period, 355 (74.9%) were randomised and 323 analysed, 172 LC and 151 SIOC patients. Both direct and total costs were less for SIOC than for LC patients. The total costs were 5429 (4293–6932) USD for LC and 4636 (3905–5746) USD for SIOC, P = 0.001. The quality of life index did not differ between the LC and SIOC groups at any time. Median values (25th and 75th percentiles (p25-p75)) for AUC at 1 year were as follows: 349 (337–351) for LC and 349 (338–350) for SIOC.

Conclusions

In this expertise-based randomised controlled trial LC was a more costly procedure and quality of life did not differ after SIOC and LC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00370344, August 30, 2006).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-017-0601-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Single-Site Robotic Cholecystectomy: The Timeline of Progress

AIM

To investigate the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy during the first 102 cases by a single surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed on the first 102 cases of single-site robotic cholecystectomy. Patients were divided into five chronological groups based on the date of surgery, with 20 patients in each group except the 5th group which had 22 patients. The groups were compared by docking time, robotic dissection time, and overall surgery time. A P value of 0.05 was used as statistically significant.

RESULTS

The female to male ratio was 2:1. The mean age was 51 years (18-87) and the mean BMI was 28.26 (18-41). Overall, 69 % of the patients underwent elective cholecystectomy and 31 % required urgent surgery. In all, 17 % of patients had previous abdominal surgeries. In total, 45 % of procedures were regarded as same day surgery. The total mean length of stay was 1.97 days (0-8). The mean operative time was 110 min (36-265), mean robotic console time 70 min (26-179), and mean docking time 9 min (1-26). The overall conversion rate was 3.9 % and the complication rate was 4 %. The docking time, robotic time, and average operative time were significantly different in the first group as compared to the remaining the five groups (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is safe in both elective and urgent conditions, and in patients with previous abdominal surgeries. It has a short learning curve.

Urgent and Elective Robotic Single-Site Cholecystectomy: Analysis and Learning Curve of 150 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic single-site cholecystectomy has increased exponentially. There are few reports describing the safety, efficacy, and operative learning curve of robotic single-site cholecystectomy either in the community setting or with nonelective surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of our initial experience with robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Demographics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated for both urgent and elective cholecystectomy. Cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the surgeon's learning curve.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty patients underwent robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Seventy-four (49.3%) patients underwent urgent robotic single-site cholecystectomy, and 76 (50.7%) underwent elective robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Mean total operative time for robotic single-site cholecystectomy was 83.3 ± 2.7 minutes. Mean operative time for the urgent cohort was significantly longer than for the elective cohort (95.0 ± 4.4 versus 71.9 ± 2.6 minutes; P < .001). There was one conversion in the urgent cohort and none in the elective cohort. There was one bile duct injury (0.7%) in the urgent cohort. Perioperative complications occurred in 8.7% of patients, and most consisted of superficial surgical-site infections. There were no incisional hernias detected. The surgeon's learning curve, inclusive of urgent and elective cases, was 48 operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic single-site cholecystectomy can be performed safely and effectively in both elective and urgent cholecystectomy with a reasonable learning curve and acceptable perioperative outcomes.

First 101 Robotic General Surgery Cases in a Community Hospital

Background and Objectives:

The general surgeon's robotic learning curve may improve if the experience is classified into categories based on the complexity of the procedures in a small community hospital. The intraoperative time should decrease and the incidence of complications should be comparable to conventional laparoscopy. The learning curve of a single robotic general surgeon in a small community hospital using the da Vinci S platform was analyzed.

Methods:

Measured parameters were operative time, console time, conversion rates, complications, surgical site infections (SSIs), surgical site occurrences (SSOs), length of stay, and patient demographics.

Results:

Between March 2014 and August 2015, 101 robotic general surgery cases were performed by a single surgeon in a 266-bed community hospital, including laparoscopic cholecystectomies, inguinal hernia repairs; ventral, incisional, and umbilical hernia repairs; and colorectal, foregut, bariatric, and miscellaneous procedures. Ninety-nine of the cases were completed robotically. Seven patients were readmitted within 30 days. There were 8 complications (7.92%). There were no mortalities and all complications were resolved with good outcomes. The mean operative time was 233.0 minutes. The mean console operative time was 117.6 minutes.

Conclusion:

A robotic general surgery program can be safely implemented in a small community hospital with extensive training of the surgical team through basic robotic skills courses as well as supplemental educational experiences. Although the use of the robotic platform in general surgery could be limited to complex procedures such as foregut and colorectal surgery, it can also be safely used in a large variety of operations with results similar to those of conventional laparoscopy.

State of the art in robotic hepatobiliary surgery

Hepatobiliary (HB) surgery is a challenging surgical subspecialty that requires highly specialized training and an adequate level of experience in order to be performed safely. As a result, minimally invasive HB surgery has been met with slower acceptance as compared to other subspecialties, with many surgeons in the field still reluctant to adopt the approach. Recently development of the robotic platform has provided a tool that can overcome many of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic HB surgery. Augmented dexterity enabled by the endowristed movements, software filtration of the surgeon's movements, and high-definition three-dimensional vision provided by the stereoscopic camera combine to allow steady and careful dissection of the liver hilum structures, as well as prompt and precise endosuturing in cases of intraoperative bleeding. These advantages have fostered many centers to widen the indications for minimally invasive HB and gastric surgery, with encouraging initial results. As one of the surgical groups that has performed the largest number of robot-assisted procedures worldwide, we provide a review of the state of the art in minimally invasive robot-assisted HB surgery.