Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 495–500 | Cite as

Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system

  • Nathaniel Melling
  • Justin Barr
  • Robin Schmitz
  • Adam Polonski
  • Jameel Miro
  • Tarik Ghadban
  • Karin Wodack
  • Jakob Izbicki
  • Sabino Zani
  • Daniel PerezEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the new Senhance robotic system (Transenterix) for robotic cholecystectomy. Our series is the first experience with cholecystectomies utilizing this new platform. From May 2017 to August 2017, 20 robotic cholecystectomies were performed using the Senhance robotic system. Patients were between 23 years and 78 years of age, eligible for a laparoscopic procedure with general anesthesia, with no life-threatening co-morbidities that limited the subjects’ life-expectancy to fewer than 12 months. A retrospective chart review was performed for a variety of pre-, peri- and postoperative data including, but not limited to patient demographics, intraoperative complications and postoperative complications. 9 male and 11 female patients were included in this study. Median age was 39.5 years (range 23–78); median BMI was 27.35 kg/m2 (range 22.8–48.3). Median docking time was 10 min (range 2–26), and median operative time was 71.5 min (range 34–197). Conversion to standard laparoscopy occurred in one case for lysis of extensive adhesions. There were no conversions to open technique. There were no intra- or post-operative complications noted. We report the first series of robotic cholecystectomies using the new Senhance system. Docking time and total operative time decreased significantly over the course of this series and did not plateau; console time did not change significantly. This study demonstrates the feasibility of utilizing this platform in performing minimally invasive cholecystectomies.

Keywords

Robotic cholecystectomy Robotic surgery Senhance robotic system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Both the Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany as well as the Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC received research grants from Transenterix to carry out this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Melling received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Barr received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Schmitz received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Polonski received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Miro received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Ghadban received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Izbicki received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Zani received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study. Dr. Perez received an institutional research grant from Transenterix to carry out this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Tang CL, Schlich T (2017) Surgical innovation and the multiple meanings of randomized controlled trials: the first RCT on minimally invasive cholecystectomy (1980–2000). J Hist Med Allied Sci 72(2):117–141Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Csikesz NG, Singla A, Murphy MM, Tseng JF, Shah SA (2010) Surgeon volume metrics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 55(8):2398–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alli VV, Yang J, Xu J, Bates AT, Pryor AD, Talamini MA et al (2017) Nineteen-year trends in incidence and indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the NY State experience. Surg Endosc 31(4):1651–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, High R, Tsang AW, Oleynikov D (2011) Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of common laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 25(4):1127–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2017) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc 32(4):2106–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien P-A (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247(6):987–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heemskerk J, van Dam R, van Gemert WG, Beets GL, Greve JWM, Jacobs MJ et al (2005) First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci surgical system in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg 22(6):426–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strosberg DS, Nguyen MC, Muscarella P, Narula VK (2017) A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 31(3):1436–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang Y, Chua TC, Maddern GJ, Samra JS (2017) Robotic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. Surgery 161(3):628–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gidaro S, Buscarini M, Ruiz E, Stark M, Labruzzo A (2012) Telelap Alf-X: a novel telesurgical system for the 21st century. Surg Technol Int 22:20–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gueli Alletti S, Rossitto C, Cianci S, Restaino S, Costantini B, Fanfani F et al (2016) Telelap ALF-X vs standard laparoscopy for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer: a single-institution retrospective cohort study. J Minim Invas Gynecol 23(3):378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gueli Alletti S, Rossitto C, Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Costantini B, Gidaro S et al (2015) Telelap Alf-X-assisted laparoscopy for ovarian cyst enucleation: report of the first 10 cases. J Minim Invas Gynecol 22(6):1079–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fanfani F, Monterossi G, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, Gueli Alletti S, Costantini B et al (2016) The new robotic TELELAP ALF-X in gynecological surgery: single-center experience. Surg Endosc 30(1):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fanfani F, Restaino S, Gueli Alletti S, Fagotti A, Monterossi G, Rossitto C et al (2015) TELELAP ALF-X robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: feasibility and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invas Gynecol 22(6):1011–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alleblas CC, de Man AM, van den Haak L, Vierhout ME, Jansen FW, Nieboer TE (2017) Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg 266(6):905–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Wagner OJ, Inan I, Pugin F, Hagen ME (2010) Set-up and docking of the da Vinci® surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 6(1):57–60Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jayaraman S, Davies W, Schlachta CM (2009) Getting started with robotics in general surgery with cholecystectomy: the Canadian experience. Can J Surg 52(5):374–378Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller DW, Schlinkert RT, Schlinkert DK (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial mayo clinic Scottsdale experience. Mayo Clin Proc 79(9):1132–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathaniel Melling
    • 1
  • Justin Barr
    • 2
  • Robin Schmitz
    • 2
  • Adam Polonski
    • 1
  • Jameel Miro
    • 1
  • Tarik Ghadban
    • 1
  • Karin Wodack
    • 3
  • Jakob Izbicki
    • 1
  • Sabino Zani
    • 2
  • Daniel Perez
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic SurgeryUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations