Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role of robot-assisted surgery in children remains controversial. This article aims to distil this debate into an evidence informed decision-making taxonomy; to adopt this technology (1) now, (2) later, or (3) not at all. Robot-assistance is safe, feasible and effective in selected cases as an adjunctive tool to enhance capabilities of minimally invasive surgery, as it is known today. At present, expectations of rigid multi-arm robotic systems to deliver higher quality care are over-estimated and poorly substantiated by evidence. Such systems are associated with high costs. Further comparative effectiveness evidence is needed to define the case-mix for which robot-assistance might be indicated. It seems unlikely that we should expect compelling patient benefits when it is only the mode of minimally invasive surgery that differs. Only large higher-volume institutions that share the robot amongst multiple specialty groups are likely to be able to sustain higher associated costs with today’s technology. Nevertheless, there is great potential for next-generation surgical robotics to enable better ways to treat childhood surgical diseases through less invasive techniques that are not possible today. This will demand customized technology for selected patient populations or procedures. Several prototype robots exclusively designed for pediatric use are already under development. Financial affordability must be a high priority to ensure clinical accessibility.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81:1336–1341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sukumar S, Roghmann F, Sood A et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28:592–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191:1090–1095

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. 5th edn, New York

  6. Cundy TP, Harling L, Marcus HJ et al (2014) Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children. J Pediatr Surg 49:646–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114:582–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meehan JJ, Sandler A (2008) Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 22:177–1782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Esposito C, El Ghoneimi A, Yamataka A et al (2013) Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in pediatric laparoscopic surgery. A multicenter survey. J Pediatr Surg 48:1750–1756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K et al (2013) Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot 9:142–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J et al (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4428-y

  13. Krummel TM, Gertner M, Makower J et al (2006) Inventing our future: training the next generation of surgeon innovators. Semin Pediatr Surg 15:309–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Heemskerk J, Bouvy ND, Baeten CG (2014) The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yoo J (2014) The robot has no role in elective colon surgery. JAMA Surg 149:184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Basto M, Sathianathan N, Marvelde LT et al (2015) A patterns of care and health economic analysis of robotic radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.13317

    Google Scholar 

  18. Winter DC (2009) The cost of laparoscopic surgery is the price of progress. Br J Surg 96:327–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buchs NC, Volonte F, Pugin F et al (2013) Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation. Surg Endosc 27:692–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kunert W, Storz P, Kirschniak A (2013) For 3D laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation: how to get maximum benefit from 3D vision. Surg Endosc 27:696–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W et al (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 6:1454–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Frede T, Hammady A, Klein J et al (2007) The radius surgical system—a new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology? Eur Urol 51:1015–1022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lukish J, Rasmussen S, Garrett D et al (2013) Utilization of a novel unidirectional knotless suture during minimal access procedures in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 48:1445–1449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Peters CA (2009) Pediatric robotic-assisted surgery: too early an assessment? Pediatrics 124:1680–1681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meininger D, Byhahn C, Mierdl S et al (2005) Hemodynamic and respiratory effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication in children. World J Surg 29:615–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cundy TP, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) International attitudes of early adopters to current and future robotic technologies in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 49:1522–1526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA et al (2001) Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5:1–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vitiello V, Lee SL, Cundy TP et al (2013) Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 6:111–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R et al (2014) A novel robotic system for single-port urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 66:1033–1043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Looi T, Yeung B, Umasthan M et al (2013) KidsArm—an image-guided pediatric anastomosis robot. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 4105–4110

  31. Leonard S, Wu KL, Kim Y et al (2014) Smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR): a vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1305–1317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu Q, Kobayashi Y, Zhang B et al (2014) Development of a smart surgical robot with bended forceps for infant congenital esophageal atresia surgery. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2430–2435

  33. Damian D, Arabagi S, Fabozzo A et al (2014) Robotic implant to apply tissue traction forces in the treatment of esophageal atresia. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 786–792

  34. Bergeles C, Yang GZ (2014) From passive tool holders to microsurgeons: safer, smaller, smarter surgical robots. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1565–1576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson CB (2006) Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 332:112–114

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hamlyn Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Thomas P. Cundy, Hani J. Marcus, Archie Hughes-Hallett & Ara Darzi

  2. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia

    Thomas P. Cundy & Sanjeev Khurana

  3. Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia

    Thomas P. Cundy & Sanjeev Khurana

Authors
  1. Thomas P. Cundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hani J. Marcus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Archie Hughes-Hallett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanjeev Khurana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ara Darzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas P. Cundy.

Ethics declarations

Funding source

No specific funding support.

Financial disclosure statement

The authors declare no financial relationships.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare 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

Cundy, T.P., Marcus, H.J., Hughes-Hallett, A. et al. Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss?. Pediatr Surg Int 31, 1119–1125 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-015-3800-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-015-3800-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation