Literature DB >> 19633893

Does robotic assistance improve efficiency in performing complex minimally invasive surgical procedures?

Shiva Jayaraman1, Douglas Quan, Ibrahim Al-Ghamdi, Firas El-Deen, Christopher M Schlachta.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We used a model of biliary-enteric anastomosis to test whether da Vinci robotics improves performance on a complex minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedure.
METHODS: An ex vivo model for choledochojejunostomy was created using porcine livers with extrahepatic bile ducts and contiguous intestines. MIS choledochojejunostomies were performed in two arms: group 1 (laparoscopic, n = 30) and group 2 (da Vinci assisted, n = 30). Procedures were performed by three surgeons with graduated MIS expertise: surgeon A (MIS + robotics), surgeon B (experienced MIS), and surgeon C (basic MIS). Each surgeon performed ten procedures per group. The primary objective was time to complete anastomoses using each method. Secondary objectives included anastomosis quality, impact of experience on performance, and learning curve.
RESULTS: da Vinci led to faster anastomoses than laparoscopy (28.0 vs. 35.9 min, p = 0.002). Surgeon A's mean operative times were equivalent with both techniques (24.5 vs. 22.3 min). Surgeons B and C experienced faster operative times with robotics over laparoscopy alone (39.4 vs. 28.6 min, p = 0.01; and 43.8 vs. 33.0 min, p = 0.008, respectively). Surgeon A did not demonstrate a learning curve with either laparoscopy (22.4 vs. 22.4 min, p = not significant, NS) or robotics (24.7 vs. 19.8 min, p = NS). Surgeon B demonstrated nonsignificant improvement with laparoscopy (46.6 vs. 39.5 min, p = NS). With robotic assistance, a learning curve was demonstrated (36.8 vs. 24.7 min, p = 0.02). Surgeon C demonstrated a learning curve with laparoscopy (58.3 vs. 33.2 min, p = 0.004), but no improvement was noted with robot assistance (32.2 vs. 34.7 min, p = NS).
CONCLUSIONS: da Vinci improves time to completion and quality of choledochojejunostomy over laparoscopy in an ex vivo bench model. This advantage is more pronounced in the hands of surgeons with less MIS experience. Conversely, robotics may allow less experienced surgeons to perform more complex operations without first developing advanced laparoscopic skills; however, there may be benefit to first obtaining fundamental skills.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19633893     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0621-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  17 in total

1.  Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system.

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Richard Neururer; Georg Bartsch; Reinhard Peschel
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  Robot-assisted abdominal surgery.

Authors:  C N Gutt; T Oniu; A Mehrabi; A Kashfi; P Schemmer; M W Büchler
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Biliary complications in relation to the technique of biliary reconstruction in adult liver transplant recipients.

Authors:  A Alsharabi; K Zieniewicz; B Michałowicz; W Patkowski; P Nyckowski; T Wróblewski; I Grzelak; R Paluszkiewicz; P Hevelke; P Remiszewski; B Cieślak; O Kornasiewicz; M Kotulski; A Skwarek; M Urban; J Sańko-Resmer; M Krawczyk
Journal:  Transplant Proc       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.066

4.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive common bile duct exploration: a Canadian first.

Authors:  Shiva Jayaraman; Ward Davies; Christopher M Schlachta
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 5.  Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Ari Abraham Hakimi; Marc Feder; Reza Ghavamian
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.510

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

Authors:  Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Marta Angelini; Fabio Sbrana; Simone Cecconi; Tommaso Balestracci; Giuseppe Caravaglios
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-07

7.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy.

Authors:  J P Ruurda; K W van Dongen; J Dries; I H M Borel Rinkes; I A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy: review of a 4-year experience with an uncommon problem.

Authors:  Manjula Jeyapalan; J Arturo Almeida; Robert L P Michaelson; Morris E Franklin
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.719

9.  Biliary complications and outcomes of liver transplantation from donors after cardiac death.

Authors:  Anurag Maheshwari; Warren Maley; Zhiping Li; Paul J Thuluvath
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.799

10.  The robotic approach to complex hepatobiliary anomalies in children: preliminary report.

Authors:  John J Meehan; Steven Elliott; Anthony Sandler
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.545

View more
  17 in total

1.  Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer.

Authors:  Hong Man Yoon; Young-Woo Kim; Jun Ho Lee; Keun Won Ryu; Bang Wool Eom; Ji Yeon Park; Il Ju Choi; Chan Gyoo Kim; Jong Yeul Lee; Soo Jeong Cho; Ji Yoon Rho
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a minimum of three years follow-up.

Authors:  Mark S Shimko; Eric C Umbreit; George K Chow; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-19

Review 3.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines.

Authors:  Ferdinando Agresta; Fabio Cesare Campanile; Nereo Vettoretto; Gianfranco Silecchia; Carlo Bergamini; Pietro Maida; Pietro Lombari; Piero Narilli; Domenico Marchi; Alessandro Carrara; Maria Grazia Esposito; Stefania Fiume; Giuseppe Miranda; Simona Barlera; Marina Davoli
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  An analysis of the impact of previous laparoscopic hysterectomy experience on the learning curve for robotic hysterectomy.

Authors:  A Eddib; N Jain; M Aalto; S Hughes; A Eswar; M Erk; C Michalik; V Krovi; P Singhal
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-02-27

5.  Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS).

Authors:  Renata Sánchez; Omaira Rodríguez; José Rosciano; Liumariel Vegas; Verónica Bond; Aram Rojas; Alexis Sanchez-Ismayel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-04-02

6.  Full robot-assisted gastrectomy with intracorporeal robot-sewn anastomosis produces satisfying outcomes.

Authors:  Xin-Xin Liu; Zhi-Wei Jiang; Ping Chen; Yan Zhao; Hua-Feng Pan; Jie-Shou Li
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  In vivo porcine training model for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy.

Authors:  Jun Suh Lee; Tae Ho Hong
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 1.859

8.  Differences in postoperative outcomes, function, and cosmesis: open versus robotic thyroidectomy.

Authors:  Jandee Lee; Kuk Young Nah; Ra Mi Kim; Yeun Hee Ahn; Euy-Young Soh; Woong Youn Chung
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Robotic duodenojejunostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome in a teenager.

Authors:  Andreana Bütter; Shiva Jayaraman; Christopher Schlachta
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-09-17

Review 10.  Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations.

Authors:  Andrea Coratti; Mario Annecchiarico; Michele Di Marino; Edoardo Gentile; Francesco Coratti; Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.