Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 2803–2808 | Cite as

Initiation of a pediatric robotic surgery program: institutional challenges and realistic outcomes

  • Mathew D. Sorensen
  • Michael H. Johnson
  • Catherine Delostrinos
  • Jeff B. Bice
  • Richard W. Grady
  • Thomas S. Lendvay
Article

Abstract

Background

Few institutions have reported their experience initiating a pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) program, and results vary regarding the outcomes for robotic surgery in children. We present the initiation of our pediatric robotic surgery program, provide suggestions for overcoming institutional challenges, and perform a comparative analysis to illustrate realistic outcomes during the learning curve.

Methods

Outcomes from consecutive children who underwent RAL surgery since the 2006 acquisition of the da Vinci® surgical system were retrospectively reviewed. To evaluate the safety and outcomes during the introduction of this new technology, we performed an outcome analysis of ureteral reimplantations comparing RAL cases to matched open controls.

Results

The first 50 RAL cases were performed over 20 months by two general and two urologic surgeons. Fourteen different procedures were performed successfully. The average patient age was 8.6 ± 5.7 years with 10 patients weighing less than 10 kg (20%). Three urologic cases were converted to traditional laparoscopy and two general surgery cases were converted to open. There were five mechanical failures. Initial outcomes comparing RAL and open ureteral reimplantations revealed similar length of stay, complications, and success with lower estimated blood loss in the RAL group. Overall OR time was 53% longer in the RAL reimplant group (361 ± 80 vs. 236 ± 58 min, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Robotic surgery appears to be safe in pediatric patients for many procedures. Proper instruction and training precedes technological proficiency. The institutional learning curve may be magnified when there are multiple participating surgeons. Operative times for initial RAL cases can be expected to be greater than their open correlates.

Keywords

Robotic surgery RAL Laparoscopy Case control analysis New technology Pediatrics 

References

  1. 1.
    Hanly EJ, Zand J, Bachman SL, Marohn MR, Talamini MA (2005) Value of the SAGES Learning Center in introducing new technology. Surg Endosc 19:477–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muneer A, Arya M, Shergill IS, Sharma D, Hammadeh MY, Mushtaq I (2008) Current status of robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Pediatr Surg Int 24:973–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Novick RJ, Fox SA, Kiaii BB, Stitt LW, Rayman R, Kodera K, Menkis AH, Boyd WD (2003) Analysis of the learning curve in telerobotic, beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting: a 90 patient experience. Ann Thorac Surg 76:749–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel VR (2006) Essential elements to the establishment and design of a successful robotic surgery programme. Int J Med Robot 2:28–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meehan JJ, Sandler A (2008) Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 22:177–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volfson IA, Munver R, Esposito M, Dakwar G, Hanna M, Stock JA (2007) Robot-assisted urologic surgery: safety and feasibility in the pediatric population. J Endourol 21:1315–1318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wong DL, Baker CM (1988) Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs 14:9–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belloli G, Musi L, D’Agostino S (1996) Laparoscopic surgery for adolescent varicocele: preliminary report on 80 patients. J Pediatr Surg 31:1488–1490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geagea T (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen’s fundoplication: preliminary report on ten cases. Surg Endosc 5:170–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whiteley G, Nair R, McCloy R (1992) Laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 192:136–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winchester DJ, Dawes LG, Modelski DD, Nahrwold DL, Pomerantz RA, Prystowsky JB, Rege RV, Joehl RJ (1993) Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. A preliminary experience. Arch Surg 128:781–784 discussion 784-786PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parra RO, Perez MG, Boullier JA, Cummings JM (1995) Comparison between standard flank versus laparoscopic nephrectomy for benign renal disease. J Urol 153:1171–1173 discussion 1173-1174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peters JH, Ellison EC, Innes JT, Liss JL, Nichols KE, Lomano JM, Roby SR, Front ME, Carey LC (1991) Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective analysis of 100 initial patients. Ann Surg 213:3–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yoshida K, Yamazaki Y, Mizuno R, Yamadera H, Hara A, Yoshizawa J, Kanai M (1995) Laparoscopic splenectomy in children. Preliminary results and comparison with the open technique. Surg Endosc 9:1279–1282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 175:683–687 discussion 687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Casale P, Patel RP, Kolon TF (2008) Nerve sparing robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation. J Urol 179:1987–1989 discussion 1990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathew D. Sorensen
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michael H. Johnson
    • 1
  • Catherine Delostrinos
    • 1
  • Jeff B. Bice
    • 1
  • Richard W. Grady
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas S. Lendvay
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pediatric UrologySeattle Children’s HospitalSeattleUSA
  3. 3.University of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations