Advertisement

Developing a Robotic Surgery Program

  • Pedro Recabal Guiraldes
  • Vincent P. Laudone
Chapter

Abstract

Successful implementation of a robotic surgery platform can result in increased value for patients, surgeons, and the institution, but building a robotic surgery program is a challenging endeavor that requires a multidisciplinary team. A steering committee is essential because coordinated efforts are required at different levels. Some of the committee’s duties include defining goals, writing institutional guidelines, credentialing and privileging surgeons, coordinating the multidisciplinary robotic team, and educating the community. Robotic surgery is expanding and sooner or later will be available at most surgical institutions. The success of these programs will depend mainly on the commitment of the team and strong leadership from the steering committee.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Steering committee Surgeon credentialing Outcomes Cost-effectiveness 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Amy Plofker, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center editor, for the editorial input.

References

  1. 1.
    Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Annual Report 2014. Sunnyvale, CA: Intuitive Surgical; 2015. http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-irhome. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.
  2. 2.
    Broholm M, Pommergaard HC, Gögenür I. Possible benefits of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery regarding urological and sexual dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2015;17:375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Xiong B, Ma L, Huang W, Zhao Q, Cheng Y, Liu J. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19:516–26.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rondelli F, Balzarotti R, Villa F, Guerra A, Avenia N, Mariani E, Bugiantella W. Is robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than the conventional laparoscopic procedure? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Int J Surg. 2015;18:75–82.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Desiderio J, Coratti A, Guarino S, Renzi C, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic approach in colonic resections for cancer and benign diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0134062.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang YS, Wang JX, Chang DW. A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. J Surg Res. 2015;195:465–74.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chuan L, Yan S, Pei-Wu Y. Meta-analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic gastrectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24:127–34.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montalti R, Berardi G, Patriti A, Vivarelli M, Troisi RI. Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:8441–51.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu H, Lawrie TA, Lu D, Song H, Wang L, Shi G. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12:CD011422.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, et al. Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112:798–812.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67:891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, Bu Y, Song F. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e108361.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:457–71.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fonseka T, Ahmed K, Froghi S, Khan SA, Dasgupta P, Shamim Khan M. Comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2015;87:41–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marano A, Choi YY, Hyung WJ, Kim YM, Kim J, Noh SH. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy: a meta-analysis. J Gastric Cancer. 2013;13:136–48.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cao C, Wolfenden H, Liou K, Pathan F, Gupta S, Nienaber TA, et al. A meta-analysis of robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:305–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tandogdu Z, Vale L, Fraser C, Ramsay C. A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:457–67.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor v Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-03136-5 (Wash Super Ct, Kitsap County, March 25, 2013). http://www.citronresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Taylor-vs-Intuitive-Surgical-Suit.pdf [published 5 February 2013; Accessed 20 Oct 2015]. http://www.law360.com/articles/444699/intuitive-not-negligent-in-surgery-death-jury-rules [published 24 May 2013; Accessed 20 Oct 2015]. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/intuitive-wins-trial-defeats-negligent-training-claims [published/corrected 10 June 2014; Accessed 20 Oct 2015].
  19. 19.
    Herron DM, Marohn M, SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:313–25. discussion 311−2CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R, et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int. 2015;116:93–101.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melich G, Hong YK, Kim J, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, et al. Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:558–68.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, Yohannan J, Hyams ES, Allaf ME. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology. 2011;78:813–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Passerotti CC, Franco F, Bissoli JC, Tiseo B, Oliveira CM, Buchalla CA, et al. Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47:1075–84.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sgarbura O, Vasilescu C. The decisive role of the patient-side surgeon in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:3149–55.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thiel DD, Lannen A, Riche E, Dove J, Gajarawala NM, Igel TC. Simulation-based training for bedside assistants can benefit experienced robotic prostatectomy teams. J Endourol. 2013;27:230–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boys JA, Alicuben ET, DeMeester MJ, Worrell SG, Oh DS, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR. Public perceptions on robotic surgery, hospitals with robots, and surgeons that use them. Surg Endosc. 2015 (Epub ahead of print).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4368-6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Recabal Guiraldes
    • 1
  • Vincent P. Laudone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Urology ServiceFundacion Arturo Lopez Perez CenterSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations