INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery is a rapidly growing area in surgery. In an era of emphasis on cost reduction, the question becomes how do you train residents in robotic surgery? The aim of this study was to determine if there was a difference in operative time and complications when comparing general surgery residents learning robotic cholecystectomies to those learning standard laparoscopic cholecystectomies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy by surgical residents between March 2013 and February 2014 was conducted. Demographic data, operative factors, length of stay (LOS), and complications were examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included in the study (18 in the robotic cholecystectomy group and 40 in the laparoscopic group). Age, diagnosis, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were not significantly different between groups. There was only 1 complication in the standard laparoscopic group in which a patient had to be taken back to surgery because of an incarcerated port site. LOS was significantly higher in the standard laparoscopic group (mean = 2.28) than in the robotic group (mean = 0.56; p < 0.0001). Operating room (OR) time was not statistically different between the standard laparoscopic group (mean = 90.98 minutes) and the robotic group (mean = 97.00 minutes; p = 0.4455). When intraoperative cholangiogram was evaluated, OR time was shorter in the robotic group. CONCLUSION: Robotic training in general surgery residency does not amount to extra OR time. LOS in our study was significantly longer in the standard laparoscopic group.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery is a rapidly growing area in surgery. In an era of emphasis on cost reduction, the question becomes how do you train residents in robotic surgery? The aim of this study was to determine if there was a difference in operative time and complications when comparing general surgery residents learning robotic cholecystectomies to those learning standard laparoscopic cholecystectomies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy by surgical residents between March 2013 and February 2014 was conducted. Demographic data, operative factors, length of stay (LOS), and complications were examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. The significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included in the study (18 in the robotic cholecystectomy group and 40 in the laparoscopic group). Age, diagnosis, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were not significantly different between groups. There was only 1 complication in the standard laparoscopic group in which a patient had to be taken back to surgery because of an incarcerated port site. LOS was significantly higher in the standard laparoscopic group (mean = 2.28) than in the robotic group (mean = 0.56; p < 0.0001). Operating room (OR) time was not statistically different between the standard laparoscopic group (mean = 90.98 minutes) and the robotic group (mean = 97.00 minutes; p = 0.4455). When intraoperative cholangiogram was evaluated, OR time was shorter in the robotic group. CONCLUSION: Robotic training in general surgery residency does not amount to extra OR time. LOS in our study was significantly longer in the standard laparoscopic group.