Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Telerobotic surgery for right and sigmoid colectomies: 30 consecutive cases

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

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using a robotic assistant for colon resections. This report describes the experience, advantages, and disadvantages of using the DaVinci system for a colectomy on the basis of 30 consecutive cases managed by a minimally invasive surgery fellowship–trained surgeon.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected on 30 consecutive colectomies performed using the DaVinci system from September 2002 to March 2005.

Results

A total of 13 sigmoid colectomies with splenic flexure mobilization and 17 right colectomies were performed for 14 men and 16 women. The preoperative diagnoses for the procedures were cancer (n = 5), diverticulitis (n = 8), polyps (n = 16), and carcinoid (n = 1). The right colectomies required 29.7 ± 6.7 min (range, 22–44 min) for the port setup, 177.1 ± 50.6 min (range, 103–306 min) for the robot, and 218.9 ± 44.6 min (range, 167–340 min) for the total case. The length of stay was 5.2 ± 5.8 days (range, 2–27 days). The robot portion was 80.9% of the total case time. The sigmoid colectomies required 30.1 ± 9.6 min (range, 15–50 min) for the port setup, 103.2 ± 29.4 min (range, 69–165 min) for the robot, and 225.2 ± 37.1 min (range, 147–283 min) for the total case. The hospital length of stay was 6.0 ± 7.3 days (range, 3–30 days). The robot portion was 45.8% of the total case time. Six complications occurred: left hip paresthesia, cecal injury, anastomotic leak, patient slipped from the operating table after the robotic portion of the case, transverse colon injury, and return of a patient to the office with urinary retention. Two sigmoid colectomies were converted to laparotomy. The specific advantages and disadvantages of using the DaVinci system for colectomies are discussed.

Conclusions

The 30 consecutive cases demonstrated the technical feasibility of using the DaVinci system for a colectomy. The longevity of the DaVinci system’s use for colectomy will be determined by comparison of its cost and outcomes with those for conventional laparoscopic colectomy.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anvari M, Birch D, Bamehriz F, Gryfe R, Chapman T (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14: 311–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ballantyne G, Moll F (2003) The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83: 1293–1304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bann S, Khan M, Hernandez J, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Rockall T, Darzi A (2003) Robotics in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 196: 784–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braumann C, Jacobi C, Menenakos C, Borchert U, Rueckert J, Mueller J (2005) Computer-assisted laparoscopic colon resection with the DaVinci system: our first experiences. 48: 1820–1827

  5. Cadiere G, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25: 1467–1477

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47: 2162–2168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Darzi S, Munz Y (2004) The impact of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Annu Rev Med 55: 223–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Delaney C, Lynch A, Senagore A, Fazio V (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46: 1633–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lau W, Leow C, Li A (1997) History of endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery. World J Surg 21: 444–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stylopoulos N, Rattner D (2003) Robotics and ergonomics. Surg Clin North Am 83: 1321–1337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparendosc Adv Surg Tech 12: 225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Talamini M, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin W (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17: 1521–1524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weber P, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne G (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45: 1689–1696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. L. Crawford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rawlings, A.L., Woodland, J.H. & Crawford, D.L. Telerobotic surgery for right and sigmoid colectomies: 30 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 20, 1713–1718 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0771-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0771-8

Keywords

Navigation