A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures

  • M. A. TalaminiEmail author
  • S. Chapman
  • S. Horgan
  • W. S. Melvin
Original article


Background: The Academic Robotics Group prospectively studied 211 robotically assisted operations to assess the safety and utility of robotically assisted surgery. Methods: All operations took place at one of four member institutions between June 2000 and June 2001 using the recently FDA-approved daVinci robotic system. A variety of procedures were undertaken, including antireflux surgery (69), cholecystectomy (36), Heller myotomy (26), bowel resection (17), donor nephrectomy (15), left internal mammery artery mobilization (14), gastric bypass (seven), splenectomy (seven), adrenalectomy (six), exploratory laparoscopy (three), pyloroplasty (four), gastrojejunostomy (two), distal pancreatectomy (one), duodenal polypectomy (one), esophagectomy (one), gastric mass resection (one), and lysis of adhesions (one). Results: Average operating room time was 188 min (range 45 to 387, SD = 83), surgical time 143 min (range 35 to 462, SD = 63), and robot time 90 min (range 12 to 235, SD = 47). Median length of stay was 1 day (range 0 to 37). There were 8 (4%) technical complications during procedures, five minor (four hook cautery dislodgement, one slipped robotic trocar) and three major (system malfunctions, two of which required conversion to standard laparoscopy). In all cases, technical problems caused only delay, without apparent altered outcome. There were medical/surgical complications in nine patients (4%). Six (3%) were considered major, including one death unrelated to the robotic procedure. Conclusions: The results of robotic-assisted surgery compare favorably with those of conventional laparoscopy with respect to mortality, complications, and length of stay. Robotic-assisted surgery is safe and effective and is a new reality for American surgery. The role of these devices in surgery will expand as the technology evolves.


Robotics Surgery Outcomes Robotic-assisted procedures 


  1. 1.
    Cadiere, GB, Himpens, J, Germay, O, Izizaw, R, Degueldre, M, Vandromme, J, Capelluto, E, Bruyns, J 2001Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases.World J Surg2514671477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maniscalo-Theberge, ME, Elliott, DC 1999Virtual reality, robotics, and other wizardy in 21st century trauma care.Surg Clin North Am7912411248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marescaux, J, Smith, MK, Folscher, D, Jamali, F, Malassagne, B, Leroy, J 2001Telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial clinical experience with 25 patients.Ann Surg23417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melvin, WS, Krause, KR, Needleman, BJ, Schneider, C, Ellison, EC 2002Computer enhanced versus standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery.J GI Surg63235Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Satava, RM, Jones, SB 2000Preparing surgeons for the 21st century.Surg Clin North Am8013531365Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sung, GT, Gill, IS 2001Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the daVinci and Zeus systems.Urology58893898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor, RH, Joskowicz, L, Williamson, B, Gueziec, A, Kalvin, A, Kazanzides, P, Van Vorhis, R, Yao, J, Kumar, R, Bzostek, A, Sahay, A, Borner, M, Lahmer, A 1999Computer-integrated revision total hip replacement surgery: concept and preliminary results.Med Image Anal3301319Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Talamini
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Chapman
    • 2
  • S. Horgan
    • 3
  • W. S. Melvin
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287USA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryEast Carolina University, Charlotte, NC 27858USA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Illinois School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612USA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryOhio State University, Columbus, OH 43210USA

Personalised recommendations