Robotic surgery: the promise and finally the progress

Robotic Kidney Transplant: The Modern Era Technical Revolution

Since the mid 20th century, transplantation has been a fast-developing field of contemporary medicine. The technical aspects of transplant operations were developed in the 1950s, with little significant change for >50 y. Those techniques allowed completion of various organ transplants and successful patient outcomes, but they also carried the inherent disadvantages of open surgery, such as postoperative pain, wound complications and infections, and prolonged length of hospital stay. The introduction and adoption of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the early 1990s to various surgical specialties including general, gynecologic, and urologic surgery led to significant improvements in postoperative patient care and outcomes. Organ transplantation, with its precision demanding vascular anastomoses, initially had been considered infeasible to accomplish with conventional laparoscopic devices. The institution of robotic surgical technology in the late 1990s and its subsequent wide utilization in fields of surgery changed its accessibility and acceptance. With the steady camera, 3D views, and multidirectional wrist motions, surgical robotics opened new horizons for technically demanding surgeries such as transplantation to be completed in a minimally invasive fashion. Furthermore, the hope was this technique could find a niche to treat patients who otherwise are not deemed surgical candidates in many fields including transplantation. Here in, robotics in kidney transplantation and its ability to help provide equity through access to transplantation will be discussed.

What are the reasons for a longer operation time in robotic gastrectomy than in laparoscopic gastrectomy for stomach cancer?

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown that robotic gastrectomy requires a longer operation time than laparoscopic gastrectomy. However, no study has analyzed the exact reason for this difference in detail. We therefore investigated the reasons why more time is needed in robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Ten consecutive cases of robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) performed in our institution were selected to measure the operation time in detail. Ten cases of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) performed during the same period were chosen for comparison. The operation videos and electronic medical records of these 20 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The overall operation time, operation time in each step, and time required for instrument changes were measured. The number of intraoperative instrument changes and camera cleanings were also counted.

RESULTS

The overall operation time (including effective time and junk time) was 56.8 min longer for RDG than LDG (273.7 vs. 216.9 min, respectively; p = 0.000). The effective time was only 15.3 min longer for RDG than LDG (145.9 vs. 130.6 min, respectively; p = 0.094). The time needed for the six technical steps was also not significantly different between the two groups. However, the junk time (instrument setup and docking or positioning of surgical arms) was 41.5 min longer for RDG than LDG (127.8 vs. 86.2 min, respectively; p = 0.001). The number of instrument changes was not different between RDG and LDG (p = 0.277), but the time required for each was longer for RDG than LDG (p = 0.000). The number of camera cleanings was lower for RDG than LDG (10.7 vs. 15.5 times, respectively; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce the operation time in RDG, a smarter and simpler system for setup should be developed to reduce the junk time. Additionally, a system for swifter instrument changes and more sophisticated energy devices are warranted to reduce the effective time.

Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is offered at most major medical institutions. The extent of its use within general surgical oncology, however, is poorly understood. We hypothesized that robotic surgery adoption in surgical oncology is increasing annually, that is occurring in all surgical sites, and all regions of the US.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified patients with site-specific malignancies treated with surgical resection from the National Inpatient Sample 2010-2014 databases. Operations were considered robotic if any ICD-9-CM robotic procedure code was used.

RESULTS

We identified 147,259 patients representing the following sites: esophageal (3%), stomach (5%), small bowel (5%), pancreas (7%), liver (5%), and colorectal (75%). Most operations were open (71%), followed by laparoscopic (26%), and robotic (3%). In 2010, only 1.1% of operations were robotic; over the 5-year study period, there was a 5.0-fold increase in robotic surgery, compared to 1.1-fold increase in laparoscopy and 1.2-fold decrease in open surgery (< 0.001). These trends were observed for all surgical sites and in all regions of the US, they were strongest for esophageal and colorectal operations, and in the Northeast. Adjusting for age and comorbidities, odds of having a robotic operation increased annually (5.6 times more likely by 2014), with similar length of stay (6.9 ± 6.5 vs 7.0 ± 6.5, p = 0.52) and rate of complications (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83-1.01, p = 0.08) compared to laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery as a platform for minimally invasive surgery is increasing over time for oncologic operations. The growing use of robotic surgery will affect surgical oncology practice in the future, warranting further study of its impact on cost, outcomes, and surgical training.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.