Cost of ownership assessment for a da Vinci robot based on US real‐world data

Contemporary inguinal hernia repair: do cost and operative time still differ by approach?

BACKGROUND

Concerns about the expense of robotic surgery for inguinal hernia repairs have emerged alongside the growing interest and skill in robotic techniques over the past decade. This study aimed to assess whether the costs of robotic inguinal hernia repairs are comparable to those of laparoscopic or open methods.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repairs using mesh at a single tertiary academic medical center from 2020 to 2023. We compared costs and operation times for initial unilateral and bilateral cases.

RESULTS

In unilateral repairs-open (n = 384), laparoscopic (n = 35), and robotic (n = 312)-the median operative times were 62, 67, and 67 min, respectively. Open repairs were quicker than laparoscopic (p = 0.010), but no significant difference was noted compared to robotic repairs (p = 0.066), and there was no substantial difference between laparoscopic and robotic repairs (p = 0.5). The total costs for unilateral open repairs ($11,218) were lower than the costs for laparoscopic ($13,819, p =  < 0.001) or robotic ($15,610, p =  < 0.001) repairs, with laparoscopic also being less expensive than robotic (p = 0.019). For bilateral repairs, the median operative times were 104 min for open (n = 56), 101 min for laparoscopic (n = 23), and 88 min for robotic (n = 70). There were no significant differences in times between open and laparoscopic repairs (p = 0.6); however, robotic repairs were quicker than both open (p = 0.012) and laparoscopic (p = 0.017) repairs. The cost for laparoscopic bilateral repair was higher compared to open ($19,727 vs $18,516, p = 0.014), but robotic surgery ($19,172) did not show a significant difference when compared to open (p = 0.11) or laparoscopic (p = 0.4) repairs.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral inguinal hernia repair is performed most quickly using robotic techniques and exhibits costs similar to those of open and laparoscopic surgery. Further studies exploring how surgeon experience with robotics affects costs and operative time are necessary.

The Da Vinci Robot, a promising yet underused minimally invasive tool for spine surgery: A scoping review of its current role and limits

BACKGROUND

The Da Vinci robot ® (DVR), released in the early 2000s, provided a set of innovation aiming at pushing minimally invasive surgery forward. Its stereoscopic magnified visualization camera, motions that exceed the natural range of the human hand, or tremor reduction enhanced the surgeon's skills and added value in many surgical fields.

OBJECTIVE

To map the current use of the DVR in spine surgery, identify gaps, address its limits and future perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review upon PRISMA guidelines through Pubmed from inception to July 2024, including english-written articles describing clinical use of the DVR on procedures related to spinal conditions. We collected a broad range of data, from journals publishing those articles, to the study design, the purpose of the study, the sample size or conclusions. We then provided a narrative review on the scope of indications and results of those studies.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including a total of forty-nine patients were included. Those included procedures in the craniocervical junction for 4 patients, thoracic spine for 5 cases, 29 patients involved the lumbar and lumbosacral segment, and 11 on the sacral region. Pathologies included degenerative diseases with 25 cases (14 ALIF and 11 OLIF), tumors as paraspinal schwannomas and odontoid lesions, but also basilar invagination of the odontoid process, Tarlov cyst, and sacral fracture.

CONCLUSION

The DVR presents as a valuable tool for minimally invasive surgery in selected cases. Further studies including cost effectiveness, leaning curve, and control trial are needed.

A deflectable video camera system for laparoscopic surgery based on shape memory alloy actuators

Laparoscopic instruments are usually not deflectable and therefore have significant usability limitations in minimally invasive surgery. Flexible-tip devices have been introduced, but they are still controlled by manual Bowden cables or conventional motors and are heavy and expensive. An interesting alternative are shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators, because they are lightweight, cost-efficient and offer the potential for a universal actuator platform for laparoscopic and other endoscopic instruments. This paper presents a laparoscopic video camera with electronic deflection control via thumb joystick. Its actuator unit consists of four SMA wires, whose special tensioning mechanism ensures both optimal preload and length compensation. The camera is tiltable in two degrees of freedom, enabled by a laser-cut Nitinol joint. Based on three assembled units and an automated measurement system, the functionality of the camera system was characterised. Deflection angles of more than 178° per degree of freedom were achieved. At operating frequencies of up to 0.5 Hz, the units showed suitable deflection behaviour. Each remained operational for more than 1200 actuation cycles or 4.4 h of continuous operation. Furthermore, the influence of continuous temperature stimulation on characteristic device parameters was investigated. This work contributes to demonstrating the feasibility of SMA actuators for the electrical control of flexible-tip laparoscopic instruments. Temperature control in particular is a challenge for future work.

Robotic Surgery in Paediatric Oncology: Expanding Boundaries and Defining Relevant Indications

This article reviews the establishment and progress of the Multidisciplinary Paediatric Robotic Program in a high-volume paediatric surgery department at Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France. A major foundational principle of the program was to establish a safe and secure environment for patients and staff, both pre-operatively, intra-operatively and post-operatively. This founding principle when applied systematically has allowed increasing confidence across the program and service. The robotic platform allows for precision surgery when approaching tumours, with freedom of movement adapted to meticulous vascular and organ dissection. Surgical feasibility is based on tumour characteristics, pre-operative imaging, with a focus on vascular and organ involvement, considering goals of surgery and surgical experience. Case complexity has been gradually increased (where appropriate) through an iterative process. The future of surgery is robotic, and even more so image-guided surgery, and this synergy has been instrumental when approaching tumour surgery in children. The current principles that guide application of robot-assisted surgery in paediatric tumours are presented. With this blueprint, excellent oncological outcomes can be achieved while utilising a minimally invasive approach in children with selected endocrine, neuroblastic and renal tumours.

The efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery in cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The utilization of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has been increasing among cancer patients. However, evidence supporting the use of RAS remains uncertain. The availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for each surgical procedure is limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RAS in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the inception of the databases until 1 April 2023. We included RCTs of RAS in cancer patients compared with laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, or open surgery, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 trials (6092 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 22 trials had a low risk of bias, seven trials had some concerns, and three trials were at high risk. Most trials were conducted for bladder cancer ( n = 8), rectal cancer ( n = 5), prostate cancer ( n = 4), and endometrial cancer (n = 4). In all cancers, RAS likely resulted in a slight reduction in the length of hospital stay (31 comparisons; mean difference [MD], - 0.91 days; 95% CI, - 1.33 to - 0.49), but resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (11 comparisons; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). Compared with open surgery, RAS was found to reduce estimated blood loss (MD, - 239.1 mL; 95% CI, - 172.0 to - 306.2) and overall complication (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96), but increase total operative time (MD, 55.4 minutes; 95% CI, 30.9 to 80.0). Additionally, RAS seemed to be not associated with positive surgical margin, any recurrence, disease-free survival, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

RAS has demonstrated small favorable effects on short-term outcomes, particularly when compared to open surgery. However, these effects may vary across different cancers. Additionally, RAS may not impact long-term survival, oncological outcomes, or quality of life in cancer patients.

Feasibility and Safety Study of the Use of a New Robot (Maestro™) for Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic surgery, telerobotic systems such as Da Vinci™ were developed, among other things, to give back exposure and vision control to the operating surgeon. However, new limitations such as the separation of the operating surgeon from the operating table, cost, and size were unveiled. A new device, Maestro™, appears promising in addressing these limitations. The current work evaluates the feasibility, safety, and surgeon satisfaction with the assistance provided by the Maestro System.

METHODS

Non-consecutive patients who were candidates for laparoscopic digestive surgery were enrolled in a descriptive prospective, monocentric study. Case selection was solely based on the availability of the device, but not on the patient's characteristics. Surgery was performed by a leading surgeon with the help of one less experienced surgeon. Feasibility was defined by the maintenance of the initial surgical plan. Safety was assessed by the absence of serious adverse events related to the device and surgeon satisfaction was evaluated by a questionnaire following the intervention.

RESULTS

All 50 procedures were completed without conversion in laparotomy and without adjustment of the surgical team. Four complications were recorded during the study; however, none related to the use of the Maestro System. In 92% of the cases, the surgeon was satisfied with the assistance provided by the Maestro System.

CONCLUSIONS

In standard elective digestive procedures by laparoscopy, the use of the Maestro System is feasible and safe. It is beneficial to the surgeon and operative room organization by limiting the size of the surgical team.

Effect of IWATE laparoscopic difficulty score on postoperative outcomes and costs for robotic hepatectomy: Are complex resections more expensive?

BACKGROUND

The IWATE criteria, a four-level classification system for laparoscopic hepatectomy, measures technical complexity but lacks studies on its impact on outcomes and costs, especially in robotic surgeries. This study evaluated the effects of technical complexity on perioperative outcomes and costs in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Since 2013, we prospectively followed 500 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were classified into four levels of IWATE scores; (low [0-3], intermediate [4-6], advanced [7-9], and expert [10-12]) determined by tumor characteristics, liver function and resection extent. Perioperative variables were analyzed with significance accepted at a p-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

Among 500 patients, 337 (67%) underwent advanced to expert-level operations. Median operative duration was 213 min (range: 16-817 min; mean ± SD: 240 ± 116.1 min; p < .001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 95 mL (range: 0-3500 mL; mean ± SD:142 ± 171.1 mL; p < .001). Both operative duration and EBL showed positive correlations with increasing IWATE scores. Median length of stay (LOS) of 3 days (range: 0-34; mean ± SD:4 ± 3.0 days; p < .001) significantly correlated with IWATE score. Total cost of $25 388 (range: $84-354 407; mean ± SD: 29752 ± 20106.8; p < .001) also significantly correlated with operative complexity, however hospital reimbursement did not. No correlation was found between IWATE score and postoperative complications or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical variables such as operative duration, EBL, and LOS correlate with IWATE difficulty scores in robotic hepatectomy. Financial metrics such as costs but not reimbursement received by the hospital correlate with IWATE scores.

Establishment of a successful robotic pediatric general surgery practice

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has a variety of theoretical advantages, including tremor filtration, optimal visualization, and improvement of surgeon ergonomics. Though it has achieved wide application in pediatric urology, the majority of pediatric general surgeons do not employ RAS. This study reports our institution's experience with RAS on a pediatric general surgery team. Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of all pediatric patients at our academic children's hospital who underwent RAS between 2017 and 2022 for pediatric general surgical conditions was performed. Patient demographics, operation performed, operating time, complications, and recovery were evaluated. A total of 159 children underwent RAS, increasing from 10 patients in 2017 to 59 patients in 2022. The median age and weight were 15.3 years and 76.4 kg, and 121 (76.1%) were female. The application of RAS was successful in all cases. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions to an open approach. Eleven patients (6.9%) had unplanned presentations to the emergency department within 30 days. Five of these patients (3.1%) required admission to the hospital. This study demonstrates that the application of RAS in an academic pediatric general surgery practice is feasible and safe. The application of RAS to pediatric general surgery should continue to increase as operative teams increase their experience and comfort.Level of evidence Level IV.

Impact of robotic surgery on patient flow and resource use intensity in ovarian cancer

There is an emerging focus on the role of robotic surgery in ovarian cancer. To date, the operational and cost implications of the procedure remain unknown. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of integrating minimally invasive robotic surgery on patient flow, resource utilization, and hospital costs associated with the treatment of ovarian cancer during the in-hospital and post-discharge processes. 261 patients operated for the primary treatment of ovarian cancer between January 2006 and November 2014 at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital were included in this study. Outcomes were compared by surgical approach (robotic vs. open surgery) as well as pre- and post-implementation of the robotics platform for use in ovarian cancer. The in-hospital patient flow and number of emergency room visits within 3 months of surgery were evaluated using multi-state Markov models and generalized linear regression models, respectively. Robotic surgery cases were associated with lower rates of postoperative complications, resulted in a more expedited postoperative patient flow (e.g., shorter time in the recovery room, ICU, and inpatient ward), and were between $10,376 and $7,421 less expensive than the average laparotomy, depending on whether or not depreciation and amortization of the robotic platform were included. After discharge, patients who underwent robotic surgery were less likely to return to the ER (IRR 0.42, p = 0.02, and IRR 0.47, p = 0.055, in the univariate and multivariable models, respectively). With appropriate use of the technology, the addition of robotics to the medical armamentarium for the management of ovarian cancer, when clinically feasible, can bring about operational efficiencies and entails cost savings.

Comparison of Contemporary Surgical Outcomes Between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate and Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study reviews contemporary literature on RASP and HoLEP to evaluate perioperative outcomes, common complications, cost analytics, and future directions of both procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

RASP is indicated for prostates > 80 mL, while HoLEP is size-independent. No notable differences were found in operative time, PSA nadir (surrogate for enucleation volume), re-catheterization rates, or long-term durability. Prolonged incontinence and bladder neck contracture rates are low for both surgeries. Patients experience similar satisfaction outcomes and improvements in uroflowmetry and post-void residual volumes. HoLEP demonstrates shorter hospitalizations, lower transfusion rates, lower costs, and higher rates of same-day discharge. RASP offers a shorter learning curve and lower rates of early postoperative urinary incontinence. HoLEP is a size-independent surgery that offers advantages for patients seeking a minimally invasive procedure with the potential for catheter-free same-day discharge. Future directions with single-port simple prostatectomy may offer parity in same-day discharge, but further research is needed to determine broader feasibility.

Comparison of robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy outcomes in multiple staple line treatment modalities from 2015 to 2019: a 5-year propensity score-adjusted MBSAQIP® analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is an increasingly common approach to sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Staple line reinforcement (SLR) is well-discussed in laparoscopic SG literature, but not RSG- likely due to the absence of dedicated robotic SLR devices. However, most RSG cases report SLR. This retrospective analysis compares outcomes in RSG cases reporting (1) any staple line treatment (SLT) vs none and (2) SLR vs oversewing.

METHODS

MBSAQIP was queried for adults who underwent RSG from 2015 to 2019. Open procedures, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, hand-assisted, single-incision, concurrent procedures, and illogical BMIs were excluded (n = 3444). Final sample included 52,354 patients. Two comparisons were made: SLT (n = 34,886) vs none (n = 17,468) and SLR (n = 22,217) vs oversew (n = 5620). We fitted multivariable regression models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and performed propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weight based on patient factors.

RESULTS

Most RSG cases utilized SLT (66.6%). Cases with SLT had a reduced risk of organ space SSI (RR 0.68 [0.49, 0.94]), 30-day reoperation (RR 0.77 [0.64, 0.93]), 30-day re-intervention (RR 0.80 [0.67, 0.96]), sepsis (RR 0.58 [0.35, 0.96]), unplanned intubation (RR 0.59 [0.37, 0.93]), extended ventilator use (RR 0.46 [0.23, 0.91]), and renal failure (RR 0.40 [0.19, 0.82]) compared to no-treatment cases. In single-treatment cases (n = 27,837), most utilized SLR (79.8%). Cases with oversew had a higher risk of any SSI (RR 1.70 [1.19, 2.42]), superficial incisional SSI (RR 1.71 [1.06, 2.76]), septic shock (RR 6.47 [2.11, 19.87]), unplanned intubation (RR 2.18 [1.06, 4.47]), and extended ventilator use (> 48 h) (RR 4.55 [1.63, 12.71]) than SLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest SLT in RSG is associated with reduced risk of some adverse outcomes vs no-treatment. Among SLT, SLR demonstrated lower risk than oversewing. However, risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest, and unplanned ICU admission were not significant.

Volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

As robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) expands to smaller centres, platforms are shared between specialities. Healthcare providers must consider case volume and mix required to maintain quality and cost-effectiveness. This can be informed, in-part, by the volume-outcome relationship. We perform a systematic review to describe the volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery to report on suggested minimum volumes standards. A literature search of Medline, NICE Evidence Search, Health Technology Assessment Database and Cochrane Library using the terms: "robot*", "surgery", "volume" and "outcome" was performed. The included procedures were gynecological: hysterectomy, urological: partial and radical nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and general surgical: colectomy, esophagectomy. Hospital and surgeon volume measures and all reported outcomes were analysed. 41 studies, including 983,149 procedures, met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the retrieved data was synthesised in a narrative review. Significant volume-outcome relationships were described in relation to key outcome measures, including operative time, complications, positive margins, lymph node yield and cost. Annual surgeon and hospital volume thresholds were described. We concluded that in centres with an annual volume of fewer than 10 cases of a given procedure, having multiple surgeons performing these procedures led to worse outcomes and, therefore, opportunities should be sought to perform other complimentary robotic procedures or undertake joint cases.

Robotic Cholecystectomies: What Are They Good for? - A Retrospective Study - Robotic versus Conventional Cases

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted cholecystectomies are often criticized as expensive with uncertain benefit to patients. Characterization of robotic surgery benefits, as well as specific factors that drive cost, has the potential to shape the current debate.

METHODS

The surgical cost and outcomes among patients who underwent robotic (n = 283) or non-robotic (n = 1438) laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2012 and 2018 at a single academic institution were examined retrospectively. All cholecystectomies were primary surgical procedures with no secondary procedures. We also examined the subset of robotic (n = 277) and non-robotic (n = 1108) outpatient procedures.

RESULTS

Robotic cholecystectomies were associated with higher median total cost compared to conventional procedures, largely attributable to variable costs and surgical costs. Patients who underwent conventional cholecystectomy had longer mean lengths of stays (1.7 versus 1.1 days) compared to robotic procedures-with over 10 times as many requiring hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, robotic cholecystectomies have a little value to patients and institutions outside of surgical training. Prior to narrowing the analysis to outpatient cases, difference in total cost between procedures was less pronounced due to more frequent inpatient management following conventional procedures. Future optimization of robotic consumables and free market competition among system manufacturers may increase financial feasibility by decreasing variable costs associated with robotic surgery.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

Robotic Surgery: At the Crossroads of a Data Explosion

BACKGROUND

For the last 20 years, controversies in robotic surgery focused on cost reduction, development of new platforms and technologies, creation and validation of curriculum and virtual simulators, and conduction of randomized clinical trials to determine the best applications of robotics [Leal Ghezzi and Campos in World J Surg 40:2550-2557, 2016].

METHODS

This review explores the robotic systems which are currently indicated for use or development in gastrointestinal/abdominal surgery. These systems are reviewed and analyzed for clinical impact in these areas. In a MEDLINE search of articles with the search terms abdominal, gastrointestinal, review and robotic surgery, a total of 4306 total articles as of 2021 were assessed. Publicly available information, highest cited articles and reviews were assessed by the authors to determine the most significant regarding clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Despite this increased number of articles related to robotic surgery, ongoing controversies have led to limitation in the use of current and future robotic surgery platforms [Connelly et al. in J Robotic Surg 14:155-165, 2020]. Newer robotic platforms have limited studies or analysis that would allow meaningful definite conclusions. A multitude of new scenarios are possible due to this limited information.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is in evolution to a larger conceptual field of computationally enhanced surgery (CES). Various terms have been used in the literature including computer-assisted surgery or digital Surgery [Ranev and Teixeira in Surg Clin North Am 100:209-218, 2020]. With the growth of technological changes inherent in CES, the ability to validate these improvements in outcomes will require new metrics and analytic tools. This learning feedback and metric analysis will generate the new opportunities in simulation, training and application [Julian and Smith in Int J Med Robot 15:e2037, 2019].

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

Efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lymph node surgery than conventional axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer - A comparative study

BACKGROUND

da Vinci robot-assisted axillary lymph node dissection (dVALND) can be a minimally invasive technique to minimize post-operative complications.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical efficacy of dVALND in breast cancer (BC) patients for mitigating the postoperative complications than conventional ALND.

METHODS

Total 60 female patients with BC were admitted to our hospitals since September 2018, and these patients segregated into two groups of 30 patients each. Modified radical mastectomy for BC was performed to the patients in both groups. In Group 1 (control group), ALND was performed using conventional mode of axillary lymph node surgery. In Group 2 (Test group), the dVALND was performed using da Vinci robot-assisted surgery. Wound healing, aesthetic effect and patient's satisfaction were evaluated after conventional method and dVALND.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications viz., wound infection (1/30 (3.33%), p < 0.05), fat necrosis (3/30 (10%), p < 0.05) and lymphedema of upper limbs (2/30 (6.67%), p < 0.05) were observed in dVALND than conventional surgery. Local recurrence or metastasis was minimized and overall aesthetic effect not observed during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

dVALND improved the overall patient's quality of life by mitigating postoperative complications than ALND.

Robotic and Endoscopic Approaches to Head and Neck Surgery

Technological developments have disrupted the practice of medicine throughout history. Endoscopic and robotic techniques in head and neck surgery have emerged over the past half-century and have been incrementally adapted to expanding indications within otolaryngology. Robotic and endoscopic surgery have an established role in treatment of oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancers, reducing surgical morbidity and improving survival relative to traditional open approaches. Surgical treatment of human papillomavirus-mediated oropharyngeal cancer via transoral robotic surgery offers equivalent oncologic and functional outcomes relative to radiotherapy. Newer iterations of single-port robotic systems continue to expand the scope of robotics in head and neck surgery.

The shift from inpatient to outpatient hysterectomy for endometrial cancer in the United States: trends, enabling factors, cost, and safety

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends in outpatient versus inpatient hysterectomy for endometrial cancer and assess enabling factors, cost and safety.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18 years or older who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer between January 2008 and September 2015 were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. The surgical approach for hysterectomy was classified as open/abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic or robotic assisted. We described trends in surgical setting, perioperative costs and safety. The impact of patient, provider and hospital characteristics on outpatient migration was assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 41 246 patients who met inclusion criteria. During the time period studied, we observed a 41.3% shift from inpatient to outpatient hysterectomy (p<0.0001), an increase in robotic hysterectomy, and a decrease in abdominal hysterectomy. The robotic hysterectomy approach, more recent procedure (year), and mid-sized hospital were factors that enabled outpatient hysterectomies; while abdominal hysterectomy, older age, Medicare insurance, black ethnicity, higher number of comorbidities, and concomitant procedures were associated with an inpatient setting. The shift towards outpatient hysterectomy led to a $2500 savings per case during the study period, in parallel to the increased robotic hysterectomy rates (p<0.001). The post-discharge 30-day readmission and complications rate after outpatient hysterectomy remained stable at around 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant shift from inpatient to outpatient setting was observed for hysterectomies performed for endometrial cancer over time. Minimally invasive surgery, particularly the robotic approach, facilitated this migration, preserving clinical outcomes and leading to reduction in costs.

Critical view of robotic-assisted transverse abdominal release (r-TAR)

INTRODUCTION

Establishing straightforward and reproducible steps to describe the technique performed with the aid of the robotic system for complex hernia surgery is key for good outcomes. Even using the description of open surgery as a parameter for performing the robotic technique, it is important to stress the particularities of this access. To describe the steps to perform robotic-assisted TAR (r-TAR) in a standardized technique, with a critical and safe view of all the anatomical structures.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNIQUE

We defined 8 landmarks for the critical view of safety in r-TAR which include: (1) patient position, trocar and docking; (2) posterior rectus sheath mobilization; (3) transversus abdominis release (TAR)-Top-down technique; (4) transversus abdominis release (TAR)-bottom-up technique and mesh insertion; (5) contralateral trocar insertion and redocking, 6) posterior sheath closure; (7) final mesh positioning; and (8) anterior defect closure and drains.

DISCUSSION

Complex hernia surgery using a robotic-assisted posterior component separation requires well-established steps so the procedure can be reproducible and achieve better results.

Cost Considerations for Robotic Surgery

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is a rapidly growing diagnostic and therapeutic modality in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, having already made a large impact in the short time since its inception. Cost-effectiveness analysis is complex, and a thorough cost-effectiveness inquiry should analyze not only financial consequences but also impact on the health state of the patient. The cost-effectiveness of TORS is still under scrutiny, but the early data suggest that TORS is a cost-effective method compared with other available options when used in appropriately selected patients.

Advanced Technology and the Rural Surgeon

Advanced technology has resulted in major changes in surgery and medicine over the past three decades. There are many barriers to the adoption of advanced technologies, which can be more prevalent in rural hospitals and surgical practices. Despite barriers to implementation of new technologies in rural communities, many rural hospitals have endorsed and invested in these technologies for the benefit of the hospital and community. The rural surgeon is often the driving force in evaluating and deciding on new technologies for their surgical program. This article discusses advantages, challenges, and limitations in the use of advanced technologies in rural locations.

A review of haptic feedback in tele-operated robotic surgery

During traditional surgery, the surgeons' hands are in direct contact with organs, and surgeons rely on the sense of touch to perform surgery. In teleoperated robotic systems, all physical connections between the surgeon and both the robot and patient, are absent. The surgeon must estimate the force exerted on organs, based only on visual deformation of tissues he is pulling, pushing, gripping, or suturing. It is hard to imagine how to operate with no haptic sensations, and it is surprising that commercially available robots didn't include until now any Haptic Feedback, despite reports about tissue injury, and inability to perform complex manipulation. The sense of touch must be created by stimuli sensed by the surgeon. Haptic sensors are required to collect and send haptic information, and display them on the operator's side, creating telepresence, known as transparency. Multiple ways have been developed to improve transparency through force feedback and tactile feedback. However, this interferes with the stability of the closed-loop controlling interactions between master, robot and remote environment. Cutaneous feedback is more stable and less transparent; force feedback is more transparent and less stable. Thus, multimodal platforms of haptic feedback would try to find the best trade-off between both modalities.

Achieving robotic program best practice performance and cost versus laparoscopy: Two case studies define a framework for optimization

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is seen by many hospital administrators and surgeons as slower and more expensive than laparoscopic surgery despite the implementation of commonly held robotic best practices. Multiple factors, including surgeon learning curves and program governance, are often overlooked, precluding optimal robotic program performance.

METHODS

An assessment of several leading robotic surgery publications is presented followed by real-world case studies from two US hospitals: an existing robotic program in a mid-sized, regional hospital system and a small, rural hospital that launched a new program.

RESULTS

Improvements in robotic surgery costs/program efficiency were seen at the hospital system vs baseline at 18 months post-implementation; and high-performance robotic efficiency and cost benchmarks were matched or surpassed at the rural hospital at 1 year post-launch.

DISCUSSION

When best practices are utilized in robotic programs, surgical case times, costs, and efficiency performance metrics equaling or exceeding laparoscopy can be achieved.