[Da Vinci advanced robotic laparoscopic surgery: origin and current clinical application in urology, and comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery]

Key areas in the learning curve for robotic urological surgery: a Spanish multicentre survey

BACKGROUND

The number of robotic-assisted procedures offered in Spain is rapidly increasing despite a lack of consensus criteria for training and credentialling.

OBJECTIVE

This national multicentre study was designed to analyze the different areas of the robotic urological surgery learning curve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to all 13 urology units in Spain with an active robotics programme requesting information on training and problems encountered.

RESULTS

In most centres (n = 11, 84.6%), training programmes were animal-based; cadavers were used at only 2 (15.4%). Proctoring in initial procedures was practiced by 12 groups (92.3%). When initiating the robotics programme, the console was shared at 8 units (61.5%). Prior experience in open and/or laparoscopic surgery was reported by 10 of the groups (76.9%), and experience in open surgery only by 2 (15.4%) or robotic surgery alone by 1 (7.7%). The procedure with which the robotics programme was started in all 13 participating units was radical prostatectomy. The number of cases needed to complete the learning curve for this procedure was 20-25 cases according to 8 (61.5%) surgery teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Up until March 26, 2010, 1,692 operations, mostly radical prostatectomies, were conducted using the da Vinci robot in our country.

The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant benefits of laparoscopic surgery, limitations still exist. One of these limitations is the loss of several degrees of freedom. Robotic surgery has allowed surgeons to regain the two lost degrees of freedom by introducing wristed laparoscopic instruments.

METHODS

At the first Pelvic Surgery Meeting held in Brescia in June 2007, the participants focused on the role of robotic surgery in pelvic operations surgery for malignancy including prostate, rectal, uterine, and cervical carcinoma. All members of the interdisciplinary panel were asked to define the role of robotic surgery in prostate, rectal, and uterine carcinoma. All key statements were reformulated until a consensus within the group was achieved (Murphy et al., Health Technol Assess 2(i-v):1-88, 1998). For the systematic review, a comprehensive literature search was performed in Medline and the Cochrane Library from January 1997 to June 2007. The keywords used were Da Vinci, telemonitoring, laparoscopy, neoplasms for urology, colorectal, gynecology, visceral surgery, and minimally invasive surgery. The pelvic surgery meeting was supported by Olympus Medical Systems Europa.

RESULTS

As of December 31, 2007, there were 795 unit shipments worldwide of the Da Vinci((R)): 595 in North America, 136 in Europe, and 64 in the rest of the world (http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-faq#22324 ). It was estimated that, during 2007, approximately 50,000 radical prostatectomies were performed with the Da Vinci robot system in the USA, reflecting market penetration of 60% of radical prostatectomies in the USA. This utilization represents 50% growth as in 2006 only 42% of all radical prostatectomies performed in the USA employed robotics.

CONCLUSION

While robotic prostatectomy has become the most widely accepted method of prostatectomy, robotic hysterectomy and proctectomy remain far less widely accepted. The theoretical benefits of the increased degrees of freedom and three-dimensional visualization may be outweighed in these areas by the loss of haptic feedback, increased operative times, and increased cost.

Prostatectomía radical robótica: revisión de nuestra curva de aprendizaje

OBJECTIVE

We present the first cases of our robotic radical prostatectomy with Da Vinci (RRPdaV) that corresponds to the learning curve (LC) of the surgeon that has initiated with this technique.

METHODS

We reviewed the first 20 patients that underwent RRPdaV, performed by an expert surgeon, without previous laparoscopic training, but with a wide experience in retropubic and perineal prostatectomy (HV). We analyzed: Surgical time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra and postoperative complications, hospital stay and days of bladder catheterization. Also: rates and location of surgical margins, as well as functional outcomes with an average follow up of 10 months.

RESULTS

Mean operating time was 140 minutes (100-211) and blood loss 180 mL (80-360), and none required a blood transfusion. There were no intraoperative complications and neither any conversion to open surgery. The only postoperative outstanding fact was mean hospital stay were 3,35 days. (3-5). We had 6 cases of positive surgical margins (30%). The most frequent location was postero-lateral. Eighteen out of 20 patients (90%) were early totally continent, 2 (10%) required the use of one pad during the first six months due slight stress incontinence that stopped spontaneously. From 20 cases, two of them (10%) had preoperative erectile dysfunction; 12 out of the remaining 18 (66.6%) preserved potency at review and 6 (33.4%) had postoperative erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been demonstrated that robotic surgery for radical prostatectomy is clearly an advantage technique (easy maneuver although it is a minimally invasive technique, comfortable and ergonomic position for the surgeon, 3D visualization and short learning curve). The RRPDAv learning curve is significantly shorter if the surgeon has a wide previous surgical experience in open and/or laparoscopic surgery.