Michael A Finan1, Rodney P Rocconi. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, 1660 Springhill Avenue, Mobile, AL 36604-1405, USA. mfinan@usouthal.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of data published on robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology has focused on patient outcomes and surgical data. We have found that technical challenges due to the complexity of the robotic technology create a separate set of issues, adding time and difficulty to the actual surgical procedure. This study focuses on these technical problems and identifies pitfalls and potential solutions in robotics. METHODS: All patients who underwent robotic surgery for gynecologic oncology indications from August 2006 through July 2008 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data collected prospectively included demographics, surgical and clinicopathologic data, and technical problems with the robotic equipment. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent robotic surgery during the study period. A total of 11 cases (8.02%) were associated with problems with robotic technology: 2/11 (18.2%) involved malfunction of robotic arms, 2/11 (18.2%) involved light or camera cords, and the remainder included a variety of problems, including malfunction of Maylard bipolar instrument [1/11 (9.1%)], power failure requiring reboot of robot [1/11 (9.1%)], port problems [2/11 (18.2%)], and 3/1 (27.3%) had miscellaneous problems. An estimated average of 25 min was added to each of these 11 cases in order to solve robot-related technological problems. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. All problems were solved by the robotic surgeon with the assistance of robotic surgery staff. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons performing robotic surgery must become familiar with troubleshooting robotic technology. Several issues related to technical problems may arise, delaying progression of the case, and potential solutions were identified. As this technology is implemented, robotic surgeons must be trained to solve problems related to the robotic technology and associated equipment. Failure to do so may add time and technical difficulty to robotic cases.
BACKGROUND: The majority of data published on robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology has focused on patient outcomes and surgical data. We have found that technical challenges due to the complexity of the robotic technology create a separate set of issues, adding time and difficulty to the actual surgical procedure. This study focuses on these technical problems and identifies pitfalls and potential solutions in robotics. METHODS: All patients who underwent robotic surgery for gynecologic oncology indications from August 2006 through July 2008 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data collected prospectively included demographics, surgical and clinicopathologic data, and technical problems with the robotic equipment. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients underwent robotic surgery during the study period. A total of 11 cases (8.02%) were associated with problems with robotic technology: 2/11 (18.2%) involved malfunction of robotic arms, 2/11 (18.2%) involved light or camera cords, and the remainder included a variety of problems, including malfunction of Maylard bipolar instrument [1/11 (9.1%)], power failure requiring reboot of robot [1/11 (9.1%)], port problems [2/11 (18.2%)], and 3/1 (27.3%) had miscellaneous problems. An estimated average of 25 min was added to each of these 11 cases in order to solve robot-related technological problems. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. All problems were solved by the robotic surgeon with the assistance of robotic surgery staff. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons performing robotic surgery must become familiar with troubleshooting robotic technology. Several issues related to technical problems may arise, delaying progression of the case, and potential solutions were identified. As this technology is implemented, robotic surgeons must be trained to solve problems related to the robotic technology and associated equipment. Failure to do so may add time and technical difficulty to robotic cases.
Authors: Sero Andonian; Zeph Okeke; Deidre A Okeke; Ardeshir Rastinehad; Brian A Vanderbrink; Lee Richstone; Benjamin R Lee Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Orhan Agcaoglu; Shamil Aliyev; Halit Eren Taskin; Sricharan Chalikonda; Matthew Walsh; Meagan M Costedio; Matthew Kroh; Tomasz Rogula; Bipan Chand; Emre Gorgun; Allan Siperstein; Eren Berber Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 4.584