Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of a multidisciplinary robotic surgery program at a university hospital (2012–2022)

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery has become widely adopted for its ability to expand the indications for minimally invasive procedures. This technology aims to improve precision, accuracy, and outcomes while reducing complications, blood loss, and recovery time. Successful implementation of a robotic surgery program requires careful initial design and a focus on maintenance and expansion to maximize its benefits. This article presents a comprehensive study conducted at a University Hospital on the robotic surgery program from December 2012 to December 2022. Data from hospital databases, including patient demographics, surgical department, surgical time, operating room occupancy, and primary diagnosis, were analyzed. The analysis covered various time periods (surgical sessions, weeks, months, and years) to assess the program's evolution over time. Over the 10-year period, a total of 1847 robotic-assisted interventions were performed across five surgical services. Urology accounted for 57% of the cases, general surgery 17%, gynecology 16%, otorhinolaryngology 6%, and thoracic surgery 4%. The most frequently performed procedures included robotic prostatectomies (643 cases), hysterectomies (261 cases), and colposacropexies (210 cases). The weekly volume of interventions showed a notable increase, rising from 2 cases per week in 2013–2014 cases in 2022. Moreover, the average surgical duration per intervention exhibited a progressive decrease from 275 min in 2013 to 184 min in 2022. This study highlights the potential of a well-managed robotic surgery program as a viable alternative to conventional surgical approaches. Effective coordination and resource utilization contribute to the program's efficiency. The findings underscore the successful integration of robotic-assisted surgery in diverse surgical specialties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

We hereby declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request and can be accessed by contacting the corresponding author.

References

  1. Feldstein J, Coussons H (2020) Achieving robotic program best practice performance and cost versus laparoscopy: two case studies define a framework for optimization. Int J Med Robot 16:e2098. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giedelman C, Covas Moschovas M, Bhat S, Brunelle L, Ogaya-Pinies G, Roof S, Corder C, Patel V, Palmer KJ (2021) Establishing a successful robotic surgery program and improving operating room efficiency: literature review and our experience report. J Robot Surg 15:435–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01121-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bottura B, Porto B, Moretti-Marques R, Barison G, Zlotnik E, Podgaec S (1992) Gomes MTV (2022) Surgeon experience, robotic perioperative outcomes, and complications in gynecology. Rev Assoc Med Bras 68:1514–1518. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20220113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Khan MTA, Patnaik R, Lee CS, Willson CM, Demario VK, Krell RW, Laverty RB (2022) Systematic review of academic robotic surgery curricula. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01500-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawrence C (2022) The role of the robotics coordinator: improving efficiency in a robotic surgery program. AORN J 115:239–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.13625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Estes SJ, Goldenberg D, Winder JS, Juza RM, Lyn-Sue JR (2017) Best practices for robotic surgery programs. JSLS 21:e2016.00102. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00102

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Allona Almagro A, Platas Sancho A (2007) Establishment of a robotic program. Arch Esp Urol 60:371–374. https://doi.org/10.4321/s0004-06142007000400007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stringfield SB, Parry LA, Eisenstein SG, Horgan SN, Kane CJ, Ramamoorthy SL (2022) Experience with 10 years of a robotic surgery program at an Academic Medical Center. Surg Endosc 36:1950–1960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08478-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N, Barocas DA, Eden CG, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jenkinson D, Jia X, Lam TB, Mowatt G, Neal DE, Robinson MC, Royle J, Rushton SP, Sharma P, Shirley MDF, Soomro N (2012) Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 16:1–313. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Palmer KJ, Lowe GJ, Coughlin GD, Patil N, Patel VR (2008) Launching a successful robotic surgery program. J Endourol 22:819–824. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Golla V, Williams SB (2022) Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Prostatectomy in the UK-are we doing enough? JAMA Netw Open 5:e225747. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Labban M, Dasgupta P, Song C, Becker R, Li Y, Kreaden US, Trinh Q-D (2022) Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK. JAMA Netw Open 5:e225740. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.5740

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. (2014) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management | Guidance | NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175. Accessed 16 Aug 2023

  14. Alharbi S, Alasmari A, Hanafy E, Ellawindy A (2023) Reduction of hospital bed cost for inpatient overstay through optimisation of patient flow. BMJ Open Qual 12:e002142. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002142

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, Silberstein J, Keren Paz GE, Donat SM, Coleman JA, Mathew S, Vickers A, Schnorr GC, Feuerstein MA, Rapkin B, Parra RO, Herr HW, Laudone VP (2015) Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 67:1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mehmood K, Singh R, Kumar A, Mandal AK (2022) Robot-assisted and conventional urology surgical procedures: comparison of average length of stay, economic status, operative time and patient’s expenditure in a tertiary care hospital of North India. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01396-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Duchene DA, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Clayman RV, Winfield HN (2006) Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 176:2158–2166; discussion 2167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.035

  18. Smith AL, Schneider KM, Berens PD (2010) Survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents’ training and opinions on robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 4:23–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0176-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sinha A, West A, Vasdev N, Sooriakumaran P, Rane A, Dasgupta P, McKirdy M (2023) Current practises and the future of robotic surgical training. Surgeon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2023.02.006

  20. Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, Ficarra V, Novara G, van der Poel H, Mottrie A (2015) Pilot validation study of the European association of urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol 68:292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cima RR, Brown MJ, Hebl JR, Moore R, Rogers JC, Kollengode A, Amstutz GJ, Weisbrod CA, Narr BJ, Deschamps C, Surgical Process Improvement Team, Mayo Clinic, Rochester (2011) Use of lean and six sigma methodology to improve operating room efficiency in a high-volume tertiary-care academic medical center. J Am Coll Surg 213:83–92; discussion 93–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.02.009

  22. Pereira-Arias JG, Gamarra-Quintanilla M, Sánchez-Vázquez A, Mora-Christian JA, Urdaneta-Salegui LF, Astobieta-Odriozola A, Ibarluzea-González G (2019) How to build a robotic program. Arch Esp Urol 72:227–238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Marta Gonzalez Contreras, Quality Manager at Rey Juan Carlos University Hospital and secretary of the Robotics Committee, for her assistance in this project.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support was received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    Miguel Sanchez-Encinas

  2. International Doctorate School, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28933, Madrid, Spain

    Miguel Sanchez-Encinas & Raquel Barba

  3. Research Institute-Fundacion Jimenez Diaz, Madrid, Spain

    Miguel Sanchez-Encinas, Juan Rey-Biel, Rosario Noguero-Meseguer, Ignacio Muguruza, Antonio Herrero, Jose Luis Ayala & Raquel Barba

  4. Department of Maxilofacial Surgery, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Rey-Biel

  5. Department of General Surgery, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    David Alias

  6. Department of Gynecology, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    Rosario Noguero-Meseguer

  7. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    José Granell

  8. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    Ignacio Muguruza

  9. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain

    Jose Luis Ayala & Raquel Barba

Authors
  1. Miguel Sanchez-Encinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Rey-Biel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Alias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosario Noguero-Meseguer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José Granell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ignacio Muguruza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonio Herrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jose Luis Ayala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Raquel Barba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Raquel Barba, Miguel Sanchez-Encinas and Antonio Hererro. The doctors Juan Rey-Biel, David Alias, Rosario Noguero-Meseguer, José Granell, Ignacio Muguruza and Jose Luis Ayala participated in the analysis and verification of the data. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Raquel Barba and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raquel Barba.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanchez-Encinas, M., Rey-Biel, J., Alias, D. et al. Performance of a multidisciplinary robotic surgery program at a university hospital (2012–2022). J Robotic Surg 17, 2869–2874 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01726-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01726-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation