Literature DB >> 27637212

The patterns and costs of the Da Vinci robotic surgery system in a large academic institution.

Rhonda Prewitt1, Victor Bochkarev1, Corrigan L McBride1, Sonja Kinney1, Dmitry Oleynikov2.   

Abstract

The da Vinci ™Robotic System (dVRS) is the latest advancement in laparoscopic surgery allowing the surgeon more accurate and precise control of instrumentation with an added three-dimensional image. Technology comes with a price, $1.3 million. Due to charitable contributions from the Durham family, the University of Nebraska was the eighth Medical Center in the USA to obtain a dVRS in June 2000. UNMC analyzed 224 dVRS surgical procedures from July 2000 to February 2007. These procedures were designated by surgical service and further scrutinized for length of stay, and cost. We also reviewed trends in operative usage, academic and public relations components with this innovative technology. The dVRS was used for multiple other purposes that were beneficial including research with engineering graduate students, training for surgical residents, display and demos as a means for public relations. Primarily general and urologic surgeons utilized the dVRS. General surgeons were the early adopters of the new technology, the greatest growth and utilization of the equipment has been in urologic procedures, which has outpaced general surgery in the past year. Cost analysis shows a subtle benefit with a reduced length of stay by an average of 4 days. Average direct costs were found to be greater with the dVRS by $1,470. Overall, the effects of the dVRS are vast reaching and are fundamental to the growth of an academic institution and continued progress in minimally invasive surgery.

Keywords:  Academic institutions; Da Vinci; Laparoscopic robotic surgery; Training

Year:  2008        PMID: 27637212     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-008-0075-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  13 in total

1.  What is the value of telerobotic technology in gastrointestinal surgery?

Authors:  A Perez; M J Zinner; S W Ashley; D C Brooks; E E Whang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-01-18       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system.

Authors:  G Hubens; H Coveliers; L Balliu; M Ruppert; W Vaneerdeweg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results.

Authors:  G H Ballantyne
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-29       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Douglas Skarecky; David Lee; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Robotic abdominal surgery.

Authors:  Eric J Hanly; Mark A Talamini
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Application of robotics in general surgery: initial experience.

Authors:  Ninh T Nguyen; Marcelo W Hinojosa; David Finley; Melinda Stevens; Mahbod Paya
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 0.688

7.  Value of the SAGES Learning Center in introducing new technology.

Authors:  E J Hanly; J Zand; S L Bachman; M R Marohn; M A Talamini
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-02-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Robotics in urology.

Authors:  Ashok K Hemal; Mani Menon
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  Minimally invasive mitral valve repair using the da Vinci robotic system.

Authors:  Antone J Tatooles; Patroklos S Pappas; Paul J Gordon; Mark S Slaughter
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency.

Authors:  K Narazaki; D Oleynikov; N Stergiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 3.453

View more
  7 in total

1.  Low confidence levels with the robotic platform among senior surgical residents: simulation training is needed.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Jason M Long; Sean Brown; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-08-11

2.  Comparing a Mechanical Analogue With the Da Vinci User Interface: Suturing at Challenging Angles.

Authors:  Patrick L Anderson; Ray A Lathrop; S Duke Herrell; Robert J Webster
Journal:  IEEE Robot Autom Lett       Date:  2016-02-11

Review 3.  Review of the Standard and Advanced Screening, Staging Systems and Treatment Modalities for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Siaw Shi Boon; Ho Yin Luk; Chuanyun Xiao; Zigui Chen; Paul Kay Sheung Chan
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 4.  Robot-like dexterity without computers and motors: a review of hand-held laparoscopic instruments with wrist-like tip articulation.

Authors:  Patrick L Anderson; Ray A Lathrop; Robert J Webster
Journal:  Expert Rev Med Devices       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.166

Review 5.  Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment.

Authors:  Ioannis D Gkegkes; Ioannis A Mamais; Christos Iavazzo
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2017 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.407

6.  Exploring non-assembly 3D printing for novel compliant surgical devices.

Authors:  Costanza Culmone; Paul W J Henselmans; Remi I B van Starkenburg; Paul Breedveld
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A Fully 3D-Printed Steerable Instrument for Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Authors:  Costanza Culmone; Kirsten Lussenburg; Joost Alkemade; Gerwin Smit; Aimée Sakes; Paul Breedveld
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.623

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.