Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Establishing a pediatric robotic surgery program in Canada

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the introduction of robotic surgery in 2000, few pediatric surgeons outside the United States have embraced this technology. We discuss our experience with establishing the first Canadian pediatric robotic surgery program. After simulator training, live animal surgery and observation of robotically assisted cases at an outside institution, we performed our first pediatric da Vinci® surgery in July 2013. A prospective database was established to assess outcomes. Forty one children have undergone robotically assisted surgery for the following 42 procedures: (a) pyeloplasty (17), (b) ureteral reimplantations (12), (c) uretero-uretostomy (1), (d) cholecystectomies (10), (e) interval appendectomy (1) and (f) distal pancreatectomy (1). The average age was 9.7 years (range 1.6–17.9) and 66% of patients were female. Average operative time was 174 min (range 47–301). Length of stay was 3 days (range 0–20). All procedures were completed without conversion to open or laparoscopy. There were no technical failures. Two post re-implantation patients had urine leaks which required conservative treatment. Despite the lack of haptic feedback, we have noted that the markedly enhanced three-dimensional visualization and instrument dexterity offer significant advantages for complex reconstructive pediatric surgery. This platform may also enable trainees to perform more advanced minimally invasive pediatric surgery. We have successfully established the first pediatric robotic surgery program in Canada. Our da Vinci® system is shared with our adult colleagues, which enables more frequent use as well as some cost sharing. A dedicated group of operative nurses and surgeons are required to allow adoption of this new technology.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kant et al (2004) Robotics in pediatric surgery: perspectives for imaging. Pediatr Radiol 34:454–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chandra et al (2006) Surgical robotics and image guided therapy in pediatric surgery: emerging and converging minimal access technologies. Semin Pediatr Surg 15:267–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Haasteren G et al (2009) Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment. Pediatrics 124:1642–1649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Okada SYT, Yamauchi H et al (1998) Single-surgeon thoracoscopy surgery with a voice-controlled robot. Lancet 351:1249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Partin A, Adams J, Moore R et al (1995) Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report. J Amm Coll Surg 181:552–557

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Meininger DD, Byhahn C, Heller K et al (2001) Totally endoscopic nissen fundoplication with a robotic system in a child. Surg Endosc 15:1360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cundy TP et al (2013) The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 48:858–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Intuitive Surgical. Annual Report 2015 [Internet]. http://www.annualreports.com/Company/intuitive-surgical-inc

  9. Meehan JJ, Sandler A (2007) Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 22:177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Livingston MH, Shawyer AC, Rosenbaum PL et al (2015) Fundoplication and gastrostomy versus percutaneous gastrojejunostomy for gastroesophageal reflux disease in children with neurologic impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 50:707–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK et al (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tomaszeski JJ, Matchett JC, Davies BJ et al (2012) Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostactectomy. Urology 80:126–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Aseem Shukla for allowing us to observe him perform robotic surgery at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia as well as his kind hospitality during our visit. We would also like to thank Drs Shukla and Meehan for proctoring us for our first robotic cases. In addition, we would like to thank Kamary Coriolano-DaSilva for his assistance with creating our REDCap database and obtaining ethics approval. Finally, we would like to thank Dave Vickers, our robotic OR nursing coordinator, as well as our OR nursing staff for their patience, support, and assistance with this new technology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreana Bütter.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

Drs. Bütter, Merritt, and Dave declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bütter, A., Merritt, N. & Dave, S. Establishing a pediatric robotic surgery program in Canada. J Robotic Surg 11, 207–210 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0646-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0646-0

Keywords

Navigation