Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The Academic Robotics Group prospectively studied 211 robotically assisted operations to assess the safety and utility of robotically assisted surgery. Methods: All operations took place at one of four member institutions between June 2000 and June 2001 using the recently FDA-approved daVinci robotic system. A variety of procedures were undertaken, including antireflux surgery (69), cholecystectomy (36), Heller myotomy (26), bowel resection (17), donor nephrectomy (15), left internal mammery artery mobilization (14), gastric bypass (seven), splenectomy (seven), adrenalectomy (six), exploratory laparoscopy (three), pyloroplasty (four), gastrojejunostomy (two), distal pancreatectomy (one), duodenal polypectomy (one), esophagectomy (one), gastric mass resection (one), and lysis of adhesions (one). Results: Average operating room time was 188 min (range 45 to 387, SD = 83), surgical time 143 min (range 35 to 462, SD = 63), and robot time 90 min (range 12 to 235, SD = 47). Median length of stay was 1 day (range 0 to 37). There were 8 (4%) technical complications during procedures, five minor (four hook cautery dislodgement, one slipped robotic trocar) and three major (system malfunctions, two of which required conversion to standard laparoscopy). In all cases, technical problems caused only delay, without apparent altered outcome. There were medical/surgical complications in nine patients (4%). Six (3%) were considered major, including one death unrelated to the robotic procedure. Conclusions: The results of robotic-assisted surgery compare favorably with those of conventional laparoscopy with respect to mortality, complications, and length of stay. Robotic-assisted surgery is safe and effective and is a new reality for American surgery. The role of these devices in surgery will expand as the technology evolves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. GB Cadiere J Himpens O Germay R Izizaw M Degueldre J Vandromme E Capelluto J Bruyns (2001) ArticleTitleFeasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25 1467–1477 Occurrence Handle11760751

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. ME Maniscalo-Theberge DC Elliott (1999) ArticleTitleVirtual reality, robotics, and other wizardy in 21st century trauma care. Surg Clin North Am 79 1241–1248 Occurrence Handle10625975

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. J Marescaux MK Smith D Folscher F Jamali B Malassagne J Leroy (2001) ArticleTitleTelerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial clinical experience with 25 patients. Ann Surg 234 1–7 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-200107000-00001 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MzlvFCisg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11420476

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. WS Melvin KR Krause BJ Needleman C Schneider EC Ellison (2002) ArticleTitleComputer enhanced versus standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J GI Surg 6 32–35

    Google Scholar 

  5. RM Satava SB Jones (2000) ArticleTitlePreparing surgeons for the 21st century. Surg Clin North Am 80 1353–1365 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvmtVOhsw%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. GT Sung IS Gill (2001) ArticleTitleRobotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the daVinci and Zeus systems. Urology 58 893–898 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01423-6 Occurrence Handle11744453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. RH Taylor L Joskowicz B Williamson A Gueziec A Kalvin P Kazanzides R Van Vorhis J Yao R Kumar A Bzostek A Sahay M Borner A Lahmer (1999) ArticleTitleComputer-integrated revision total hip replacement surgery: concept and preliminary results. Med Image Anal 3 301–319 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c7ntlGgsA%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA

    M. A. Talamini

  2. Department of Surgery, East Carolina University, Charlotte, NC 27858, USA

    S. Chapman

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Illinois School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

    S. Horgan

  4. Department of Surgery, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

    W. S. Melvin

Authors
  1. M. A. Talamini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Chapman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Horgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. S. Melvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Talamini.

Additional information

All authors are members of the Academic Robotics Group. In listing The Academic Robotics Group, the authors are endeavoring to place each of the participant institutions on an equal footing in terms of effort and authorship. M. A. Talamini is serving as presenter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Talamini, M., Chapman, S., Horgan, S. et al. A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures . Surg Endosc 17, 1521–1524 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8853-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-8853-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation