Literature DB >> 19451894

Robotic laparoscopic surgery: cost and training.

A Amodeo1, A Linares Quevedo, J V Joseph, E Belgrano, H R H Patel.   

Abstract

The advantages of minimally invasive surgery are well accepted. Shorter hospital stays, decreased postoperative pain, rapid return to preoperative activity, decreased postoperative ileus, and preserved immune function are among the benefits of the laparoscopic approach. However, the instruments of laparoscopy afford surgeons limited precision and poor ergonomics, and their use is associated with a significant learning curve and the amount of time and energy necessary to develop and maintain such advanced laparoscopic skills is not insignificant. The robotic surgery allows all laparoscopists to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures with greater ease. The potential advantages of surgical robotic systems include making advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures accessible to surgeons who do not have advanced video endoscopic training and broadening the scope of surgical procedures that can be performed using the laparoscopic method. The wristed instruments, x10 magnifications, tremor filtering, scaling of movements and three-dimensional view allow the urologist to perform the intricate dissection and anastomosis with high precision. The robot is not, however, without significant disadvantages as compared with traditional laparoscopy. These include greater expense and consumption of operating room resources such as space and the availability of skilled technical staff, complete elimination of tactile feedback, and more limited options for trocar placement. The current cost of the da Vinci system is $ 1.2 million and annual maintenance is $ 138000. Many studies suggest that depreciation and maintenance costs can be minimised if the number of robotic cases is increased. The high cost of purchasing and maintaining the instruments of the robotic system is one of its many disadvantages. The availability of the robotic systems to only a limited number of centres reduces surgical training opportunities. Hospital administrators and surgeons must define the reasons for developing a robotic surgical program: it is very important to show that robotics will add a dimension that will benefit the hospital, the patient care and institutional recognition. Another essential task to overcome is the important education of the operating room nursing staff, a significant difference between this modality and traditional surgery. Without operating room environment support, most surgeons will revert to traditional methods even after a few successful robotics cases. As the field of robotic surgery continues to grow, graduate medical education and continuing medical education programs that address the surgical robotic learning needs of residents and practicing surgeons need to be developed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19451894

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minerva Urol Nefrol        ISSN: 0393-2249            Impact factor:   3.720


  22 in total

1.  The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer(®) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills.

Authors:  Cyril Perrenot; Manuela Perez; Nguyen Tran; Jean-Philippe Jehl; Jacques Felblinger; Laurent Bresler; Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Virtual reality does not meet expectations in a pilot study on multimodal laparoscopic surgery training.

Authors:  Felix Nickel; Vasile V Bintintan; Tobias Gehrig; Hannes G Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Carsten N Gutt; Beat P Müller-Stich
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Objective assessment of robotic surgical skill using instrument contact vibrations.

Authors:  Ernest D Gomez; Rajesh Aggarwal; William McMahan; Karlin Bark; Katherine J Kuchenbecker
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Evaluation of different time schedules in training with the Da Vinci simulator.

Authors:  C Güldner; A Orth; P Dworschak; I Diogo; M Mandapathil; A Teymoortash; U Walliczek-Dworschak
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Baseline urologic surgical skills among medical students: Differentiating trainees.

Authors:  Vishaal Gupta; Andrea G Lantz; Tarek Alzharani; Kirsten Foell; Jason Y Lee
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Evaluation of robotic minimally invasive surgical skills using motion studies.

Authors:  Seung-Kook Jun; Madusudanan Sathia Narayanan; Pankaj Singhal; Sudha Garimella; Venkat Krovi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-07-14

Review 7.  Da Vinci© Skills Simulator™: is an early selection of talented console surgeons possible?

Authors:  Mark Meier; Kevin Horton; Hubert John
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-06-22

8.  European otorhinolaryngology training programs: results of a European survey about training satisfaction, work environment and conditions in six countries.

Authors:  N Oker; Naif H Alotaibi; A C Reichelt; P Herman; M Bernal-Sprekelsen; Andreas E Albers
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Handheld robotic needle holder training: slower but better.

Authors:  Jing Feng; Zhiyuan Yan; Zhijiang Du; Kun Yang; Man Li; Zhang Zhang; XiaoJia Chen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Robotic surgery in Italy national survey (2011).

Authors:  Eugenio Santoro; Vito Pansadoro
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2012-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.