BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques are routinely used in urological and gynecological procedures; however, their role in general surgical procedures is limited. A robotic technique has been successfully adopted for a minimally invasive Heller myotomy procedure for achalasia. This study aims to compare perioperative outcomes following open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy. METHODS: This study is a multicenter, retrospective analysis utilizing a large administrative database. The University Health System Consortium (UHC) is an alliance between academic medical centers and affiliate hospitals. The UHC database was accessed using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and analyzed. RESULTS: 2,683 patients with achalasia underwent Heller myotomy between October 2007 and June 2011. Myotomy was performed by open surgery (OM) in 418 patients, by laparoscopic approach (LM) in 2,116, and by robotic approach (RM) in 149. Comparison between LM and RM groups demonstrated no significant difference in mortality (0.14 vs. 0.0%; P = 1), morbidity (5.19 vs. 4.02%; P = 0.7), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (6.62 vs. 3.36%; P = 0.12), length of stay (LOS) (2.70 ± 3.87 days vs. 2.42 ± 2.69 days; P = 0.34), or 30-day readmission (1.41 vs. 2.84%; P = 0.27). However, hospital costs were significantly lower for the LM group (US $7,441 ± 7,897 vs. US $9,415 ± 5,515; P = 0.0028). Comparison between OM and RM demonstrated significant lower morbidity (9.08 vs. 4.02%; P = 0.02), ICU admission rate (14.01 vs. 3.36%, P = 0.0002), and LOS (4.42 ± 5.25 days vs. 2.42 ± 2.69 days; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative outcomes are superior in LM and RM groups when compared with OM. The outcomes for the LM and RM group are comparable, with the robotic group having slightly improved results, although with increased costs. We conclude that robotic surgery is equivalent in safety and efficacy to laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and feel that the increased cost should come down as surgeons and manufacturers work together on cost reduction strategies.
BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques are routinely used in urological and gynecological procedures; however, their role in general surgical procedures is limited. A robotic technique has been successfully adopted for a minimally invasive Heller myotomy procedure for achalasia. This study aims to compare perioperative outcomes following open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy. METHODS: This study is a multicenter, retrospective analysis utilizing a large administrative database. The University Health System Consortium (UHC) is an alliance between academic medical centers and affiliate hospitals. The UHC database was accessed using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and analyzed. RESULTS: 2,683 patients with achalasia underwent Heller myotomy between October 2007 and June 2011. Myotomy was performed by open surgery (OM) in 418 patients, by laparoscopic approach (LM) in 2,116, and by robotic approach (RM) in 149. Comparison between LM and RM groups demonstrated no significant difference in mortality (0.14 vs. 0.0%; P = 1), morbidity (5.19 vs. 4.02%; P = 0.7), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (6.62 vs. 3.36%; P = 0.12), length of stay (LOS) (2.70 ± 3.87 days vs. 2.42 ± 2.69 days; P = 0.34), or 30-day readmission (1.41 vs. 2.84%; P = 0.27). However, hospital costs were significantly lower for the LM group (US $7,441 ± 7,897 vs. US $9,415 ± 5,515; P = 0.0028). Comparison between OM and RM demonstrated significant lower morbidity (9.08 vs. 4.02%; P = 0.02), ICU admission rate (14.01 vs. 3.36%, P = 0.0002), and LOS (4.42 ± 5.25 days vs. 2.42 ± 2.69 days; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative outcomes are superior in LM and RM groups when compared with OM. The outcomes for the LM and RM group are comparable, with the robotic group having slightly improved results, although with increased costs. We conclude that robotic surgery is equivalent in safety and efficacy to laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and feel that the increased cost should come down as surgeons and manufacturers work together on cost reduction strategies.
Authors: Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: L C Huffmanm; P K Pandalai; B J Boulton; L James; S L Starnes; M F Reed; J A Howington; M S Nussbaum Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Marco G Patti; Piero M Fisichella; Silvana Perretta; Carlos Galvani; Maria V Gorodner; Thomas Robinson; Lawrence W Way Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Shireesh Saurabh; Eric Unger; Julie Grossman; Francisco Couto; Namrata Singh; David Scott Lind; Lucian Panait; Andres Castellanos Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2013-08-15
Authors: Ismael Diez Del Val; Cándido Martinez Blazquez; Carlos Loureiro Gonzalez; Jose Maria Vitores Lopez; Valentin Sierra Esteban; Julen Barrenetxea Asua; Izaskun Del Hoyo Aretxabala; Patricia Perez de Villarreal; Jose Esteban Bilbao Axpe; Jaime Jesus Mendez Martin Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2013-09-14
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584