Skip to main content
Log in

Current Status of Robotic Surgery

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surgery has increasingly become a technology-driven specialty. Robotic assistance is considered one innovation within abdominal surgery over the past decade that has the potential to compensate for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopy. The dramatic evolution of robotic surgery over the past 10 years is likely to be eclipsed by even greater advances over the next decade. We review the current status of robotic technology in surgery. The Medline database was searched for the terms “robotic surgery, telesurgery, and laparoscopy.” A total of 2,496 references were found. All references were considered for information on robotic surgery in advanced laparoscopy. Further references were obtained through cross-referencing the bibliography cited in each work. There is a paucity of control studies on a sufficient number of subjects in robot-assisted surgeries in all fields. Studies that meet more stringent clinical trials criteria show that robot-assisted surgery appears comparable to traditional surgery in terms of feasibility and outcomes but that costs associated with robot-assisted surgery are higher because of longer operating times and expense of equipment. While a limited number of studies on the da Vinci robotic system have proven the benefit of this approach in regard to patient outcomes, including significantly reduced blood loss, lower percentage of postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stays, there are mechanical and institutional risks that must be more fully addressed. Robotic assistance will remain an intensively discussed subject since clinical benefits for most procedures have not yet been proven. While the benefit still remains open to discussion, robotic systems are spreading and are available worldwide in tertiary centers.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Assalia A, Gagner M (2004) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Br J Surg 91(10):1259–1274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Catarci M, Gentileschi P, Papi C, Carrara A, Marrese R, Gaspari AL, Grassi GB (2004) Evidence-based appraisal of antireflux fundoplication. Ann Surg 239(3):325–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sauerland S, Angrisani L, Belachew M, Chevallier JM, Favretti F, Finer N, Fingerhut A, Garcia Caballero M, Guisado Macias JA, Mittermair R, Morino M, Msika S, Rubino F, Tacchino R, Weiner R, Neugebauer EA (2005) Obesity surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 19(2):200–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gupta PK, Natarajan B, Pallati PK, Gupta H, Sainath J, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr (2011) Outcomes after laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Surg Endosc 25(3):784–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD006231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frede T, Stock C, Renner C, Budair Z, Abdel-Salam Y, Rassweiler J (1999) Geometry of laparoscopic suturing and knotting techniques. J Endourol 13(3):191–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kenngott HG, Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Rassweiler J, Gutt CN (2008) Robotic suturing: technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17(3):160–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rassweiler J, Safi KC, Subotic S, Teber D, Frede T (2005) Robotics and telesurgery—an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14(2):109–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carswell CM, Clarke D, Seales WB (2005) Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 12(1):80–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Annual report 2010 (2011) Intuitive Surgical Inc

  11. Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87(4):408–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 63(5):819–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2002) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60(5):864–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G, Mastropasqua M, Santoro L, Detti S, de Cobelli O (2009) Robotic vs. open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 104(7):991–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D’Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2009) A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 104(4):534–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco JA, Andradas E (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97(12):1772–1783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fiorentino RP, Zepeda MA, Goldstein BH, John CR, Rettenmaier MA (2006) Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(1):60–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Advincula AP, Xu X, St G, Ransom SB (2007) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):698–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK (2006) Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 176(2):655–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN, Bintintan VV, Koninger J, Buchler MW, Gutt CN (2007) Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 21(10):1800–1805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Kim NK, Sohn SK, Chi HS, Cho CH (2008) Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc 22(7):1601–1608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Gypen B, Van Tu T, Vaneerdeweg W (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22(7):1690–1696

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mirnezami AH, Mirnezami R, Venkatasubramaniam AK, Chandrakumaran K, Cecil TD, Moran BJ (2010) Robotic colorectal surgery: hype or new hope? A systematic review of robotics in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 12(11):1084–1093

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, Ho R, Cadeddu JA, Roehrborn CG, Lotan Y (2010) Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57(3):453–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Subhasis Giri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giri, S., Sarkar, D.K. Current Status of Robotic Surgery. Indian J Surg 74, 242–247 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0595-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0595-4

Keywords

Navigation