Monica Gustafson1, Tariq Lescouflair2, Randall Kimball3, Ibrahim Daoud4. 1. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, 114 Woodland St., Hartford, CT, 06105, USA. mgustafson9@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA. 3. Saratoga Center for General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA. 4. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, 114 Woodland St., Hartford, CT, 06105, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgeons continually strive to improve technology and patient care. One remarkable demonstration of this is the development of laparoscopic surgery. Once this proved to be a safe and reliable surgical approach, robotics seemed a logical progression of surgical technology. The aim of this project was to evaluate the utility of robotics in the context of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of robotic single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RSILC) and traditional SILC performed by a single surgeon at our institution from July 2010 to August 2013 was queried. All consecutive patients undergoing RSILC and SILC during this time period were included. Primary outcomes include conversion rate and operative time. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, duration of narcotic use, time to independent performance of daily activities and cost. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square analysis and continuous variables using t test or Wilcoxon's rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent RSILC and 44 underwent SILC. BMI was higher in the RSILC group, and the number of patients with prior abdominal surgeries was higher in the SILC group. Otherwise, demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in conversion rate between RSILC and SILC (8 vs 11 %, p = 0.60). Mean operative time for RSILC was significantly greater compared with SILC (98 vs 68 min, p < 0.0001). RSILC was associated with a longer duration of narcotic use (2.3 vs 1.7 days, p = 0.0019) and time to independent performance of daily activities (4 vs 2.3 days, p < 0.0001). Total cost is greater in RSILC ($8961 vs $5379, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: While RSILC can be safely performed, it is associated with longer operative times and greater cost.
BACKGROUND: Surgeons continually strive to improve technology and patient care. One remarkable demonstration of this is the development of laparoscopic surgery. Once this proved to be a safe and reliable surgical approach, robotics seemed a logical progression of surgical technology. The aim of this project was to evaluate the utility of robotics in the context of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of robotic single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RSILC) and traditional SILC performed by a single surgeon at our institution from July 2010 to August 2013 was queried. All consecutive patients undergoing RSILC and SILC during this time period were included. Primary outcomes include conversion rate and operative time. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, duration of narcotic use, time to independent performance of daily activities and cost. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square analysis and continuous variables using t test or Wilcoxon's rank test. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent RSILC and 44 underwent SILC. BMI was higher in the RSILC group, and the number of patients with prior abdominal surgeries was higher in the SILC group. Otherwise, demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in conversion rate between RSILC and SILC (8 vs 11 %, p = 0.60). Mean operative time for RSILC was significantly greater compared with SILC (98 vs 68 min, p < 0.0001). RSILC was associated with a longer duration of narcotic use (2.3 vs 1.7 days, p = 0.0019) and time to independent performance of daily activities (4 vs 2.3 days, p < 0.0001). Total cost is greater in RSILC ($8961 vs $5379, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: While RSILC can be safely performed, it is associated with longer operative times and greater cost.
Authors: Anthony Michael Gonzalez; Jorge Rafael Rabaza; Charan Donkor; Rey Jesús Romero; Radomir Kosanovic; Juan Carlos Verdeja Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sigi Joseph; B Todd Moore; G Brent Sorensen; John W Earley; Fengming Tang; Phil Jones; Kimberly M Brown Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Salvador Morales-Conde; Andrea Peeters; Yannick M Meyer; Stavros A Antoniou; Isaías Alarcón Del Agua; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Amir Ben Yehuda; Luigi Boni; Elisa Cassinotti; Giovanni Dapri; Tao Yang; Sofie Fransen; Antonello Forgione; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Michele Mazzola; Marco Migliore; Christof Mittermair; Doris Mittermair; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Carlos Moreno-Sanz; Andrea Morlacchi; Eran Nizri; Myrthe Nuijts; Jonas Raakow; Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Amir Szold; Helmut Weiss; Michael Weiss; Ricardo Zorron; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rivfka Shenoy; Michael A Mederos; Linda Ye; Selene S Mak; Meron M Begashaw; Marika S Booth; Paul G Shekelle; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-23