Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 584–588 | Cite as

Does robotic assistance improve efficiency in performing complex minimally invasive surgical procedures?

  • Shiva Jayaraman
  • Douglas Quan
  • Ibrahim Al-Ghamdi
  • Firas El-Deen
  • Christopher M. Schlachta
Article

Abstract

Objective

We used a model of biliary-enteric anastomosis to test whether da Vinci robotics improves performance on a complex minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedure.

Methods

An ex vivo model for choledochojejunostomy was created using porcine livers with extrahepatic bile ducts and contiguous intestines. MIS choledochojejunostomies were performed in two arms: group 1 (laparoscopic, n = 30) and group 2 (da Vinci assisted, n = 30). Procedures were performed by three surgeons with graduated MIS expertise: surgeon A (MIS + robotics), surgeon B (experienced MIS), and surgeon C (basic MIS). Each surgeon performed ten procedures per group. The primary objective was time to complete anastomoses using each method. Secondary objectives included anastomosis quality, impact of experience on performance, and learning curve.

Results

da Vinci led to faster anastomoses than laparoscopy (28.0 vs. 35.9 min, p = 0.002). Surgeon A’s mean operative times were equivalent with both techniques (24.5 vs. 22.3 min). Surgeons B and C experienced faster operative times with robotics over laparoscopy alone (39.4 vs. 28.6 min, p = 0.01; and 43.8 vs. 33.0 min, p = 0.008, respectively). Surgeon A did not demonstrate a learning curve with either laparoscopy (22.4 vs. 22.4 min, p = not significant, NS) or robotics (24.7 vs. 19.8 min, p = NS). Surgeon B demonstrated nonsignificant improvement with laparoscopy (46.6 vs. 39.5 min, p = NS). With robotic assistance, a learning curve was demonstrated (36.8 vs. 24.7 min, p = 0.02). Surgeon C demonstrated a learning curve with laparoscopy (58.3 vs. 33.2 min, p = 0.004), but no improvement was noted with robot assistance (32.2 vs. 34.7 min, p = NS).

Conclusions

da Vinci improves time to completion and quality of choledochojejunostomy over laparoscopy in an ex vivo bench model. This advantage is more pronounced in the hands of surgeons with less MIS experience. Conversely, robotics may allow less experienced surgeons to perform more complex operations without first developing advanced laparoscopic skills; however, there may be benefit to first obtaining fundamental skills.

Keywords

Robotics Biliary-enteric anastomosis Bile Learning curve Technology 

References

  1. 1.
    Jayaraman S, Davies W, Schlachta CM (2008) Robot-assisted minimally invasive common bile duct exploration: a Canadian first. Can J Surg 51:E93–E94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A et al (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chitwood WR Jr, Nifong LW, Chapman WH, Felger JE, Bailey BM, Ballint T et al (2001) Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg 234:475–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60:509–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chekan EG, Clark L, Wu J, Pappas TN, Eubanks S (1999) Laparoscopic biliary and enteric bypass. Semin Surg Oncol 16:313–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeyapalan M, Almeida JA, Michaelson RL, Franklin ME Jr (2002) Laparoscopic choledochoduodenostomy: review of a 4-year experience with an uncommon problem. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:148–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schob OM, Schmid RA, Morimoto AK, Largiader F, Zucker KA (1997) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy. Am J Surg 173:312–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruurda JP, van Dongen KW, Dries J, Borel Rinkes IH, Broeders IA (2003) Robot-assisted laparoscopic choledochojejunostomy. Surg Endosc 17:1937–1942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meehan JJ, Elliot S, Sandler A (2007) The robotic approach to complex hepatobiliary anomalies in children: preliminary report. J Pediatr Surg 42:2110–2114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rothlin MA, Schob O, Weber M (1999) Laparoscopic gastro- and hepaticojejunostomy for palliation of pancreatic cancer: a case controlled study. Surg Endosc 13:1065–1069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    El-Hakim A, Leung RA, Tewari A (2006) Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 6:11–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hakimi AA, Feder M, Ghavamian R (2007) Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature. Urol J 4:130–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wexner SD, Begamaschi R, Lacy A, Udo J, Brölmann H, Kennedy RH et al (2008) The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results from a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc 23:438–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Welling TH, Heidt DG, Englesbe MJ, Magee JC, Sung RS, Campbell DA et al (2008) Biliary complications following liver transplantation in the model for end-stage liver disease era: effect of donor, recipient, and technical factors. Liver Transpl 14:73–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maheshwari A, Maley W, Li Z, Thuluvath PJ (2007) Biliary complications and outcomes of liver transplantation from donors after cardiac death. Liver Transpl 13:1645–1653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alsharabi A, Zieniewicz K, Michałowicz B, Patkowski W, Nyckowski P, Wróblewski T et al (2007) Biliary complications in relation to the technique of biliary reconstruction in adult liver transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 39:2785–2787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiva Jayaraman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Douglas Quan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ibrahim Al-Ghamdi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Firas El-Deen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher M. Schlachta
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CSTAR (Canadian Surgical Technologies and Advanced Robotics)Lawson Health Research InstituteLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations