Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the most commonly performed robotic-assisted general surgery (RAGS) procedures in a nationwide database and compare them with their laparoscopic counterparts.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2008 to December 2010 for patients undergoing elective, abdominal RAGS procedures. The two most common, robotic-assisted fundoplication (RF) and gastroenterostomy without gastrectomy (RG), were individually compared with the laparoscopic counterparts (LF and LG, respectively).

Results

During the study, 297,335 patients underwent abdominal general surgery procedures, in which 1,809 (0.6 %) utilized robotic-assistance. From 2009 to 2010, the incidence of RAGS nearly doubled from 573 to 1128 cases. The top five RAGS procedures by frequency were LG, LF, laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, other anterior resection of rectum, and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Eight of the top ten RAGS were colorectal or foregut operations. RG was performed in 282 patients (0.9 %) and LG in 29,677 patients (99.1 %). When comparing RG with LG there was no difference in age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative complications, or mortality; however, length of stay (LOS) was longer in RG (2.5 ± 2.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.5 days; p < 0.0001). Total cost for RG was substantially higher ($60,837 ± 28,887 vs. $42,743 ± 23,366; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (87.2 vs. 50.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (100 vs. 93.0 %; p < 0.0001). RF was performed in 272 patients (3.5 %) and LF in 7,484 patients (96.5 %). RF patients were more often male compared with LF (38.2 vs. 32.3 %; p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in age, race, CCI, LOS, or postoperative complications. RF was more expensive than LF ($37,638 ± 21,134 vs. $32,947 ± 24,052; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (72.4 vs. 54.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (98.5 vs. 88.7 %; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This nationwide study of RAGS exemplifies its low but increasing incidence across the country. RAGS is regionalized to urban teaching centers compared with conventional laparoscopic techniques. Despite similar postoperative outcomes, there is significantly increased cost associated with RAGS.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mouret P (1996) How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 25:744–747

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reddick EJ, Olsen DO (1989) Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy: a comparison with mini-lap cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 3:131–133

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mack MJ (2001) Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JAMA 285:568–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. US FDA. July 2000 510(k) clearances. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/510kClearances/ucm093464.htm. Accessed 3 Apr 2013

  5. Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC (2012) Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 187:1392–1398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hottenrott C (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer and cost-effectiveness analysis. Surg Endosc 25:3954–3956 author reply 3957–3958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. American Hospital Association (2008) AHA coding clinic for ICD-9-CM. AHA, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  11. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) (2010) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville (MD). http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed 30 Jan 2013

  12. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quan H, Parsons GA, Ghali WA (2002) Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care 40:675–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43:1130–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Belyansky I, Heniford BT (2013) Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 27:109–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239:43–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jayne DG, Culmer PR, Barrie J, Hewson R, Neville A (2011) Robotic platforms for general and colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 13(Suppl. 7):78–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hottenrott C (2012) Robotic surgery and limitations. Surg Endosc 26:580–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Intuitive Surgical®. da Vinci® Surgery. General surgery clinical evidence. Rev B 07/2012. http://www.davincisurgery.com/da-vinci-general-surgery/clinical-evidence/. Accessed 9 Apr 2013

  20. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Hu JC (2012) Hospital volume, utilization, costs and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 187:1632–1637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huffmanm LC, Pandalai PK, Boulton BJ, James L, Starnes SL, Reed MF, Howington JA, Nussbaum MS (2007) Robotic Heller myotomy: a safe operation with higher postoperative quality-of-life indices. Surgery 142:613–618 discussion 618–620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ito F, Gould JC (2006) Robotic foregut surgery. Int J Med Robot 2:287–292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, Sonzogni A, Biffi R (2013) Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 257:672–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kang J, Yoon KJ, Min BS, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY (2013) The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison—open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Ann Surg 257:95–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jacobsen G, Berger R, Horgan S (2003) The role of robotic surgery in morbid obesity. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:279–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, Wykypiel H, Unger A, Holler E, Nehoda H, Aigner F, Weiss HG (2003) DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes Surg 13:848–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, Huber O, Buchs N, Iranmanesh P, Morel P (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, Rocchietto S, Allieta R, Morino M (2011) Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 25:597–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12:225–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16:1790–1792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam AP, Hagen ME, Talamini M, Horgan S, Wagner OJ (2010) Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 6:125–131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Albassam AA, Mallick MS, Gado A, Shoukry M (2009) Nissen fundoplication, robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic procedure: a comparative study in children. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:316–319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang J, Wu WM, You L, Zhao YP (2013) Robotic versus open pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1774–1780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of short outcomes. Surg Oncol 21:274–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61:679–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA, Rastinehad A, Vanderbrink BA, Richstone L, Lee BR (2008) Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol 15:3912–3916

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Southern Surgeons Club. Am J Surg 170:55–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith R, Patel V, Chauhan S, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: outcomes measures and curriculum development. NextMED/MMVR 20; San Diego, 20–23 Feb 2013

  41. Hashimoto DA, Gomez ED, Danzer E, Edelson PK, Morris JB, Williams NN, Dumon KR (2012) Intraoperative resident education for robotic laparoscopic gastric banding surgery: a pilot study on the safety of stepwise education. J Am Coll Surg 214:990–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2024-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum. Surg Endosc 26:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ (2011) Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 25:2141–2146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None.

Disclosures

Dr. Heniford receives honoraria from Ethicon Inc. and W.L. Gore and Associates. Drs. Augenstein and Stefanidis receive honoraria from Bard, Inc. Drs. Heniford and Augenstein have received research grants from W.L. Gore and Associates, Lifecell, Inc., and Synovis. Drs. Wormer, Bradley, and Williams, Ms. Walters and Mr. Dacey have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Blair A. Wormer, Kristian T. Dacey, Kristopher B. Williams, Joel F. Bradley III, Amanda L. Walters, Vedra A. Augenstein, Dimitrios Stefanidis & B. Todd Heniford

Authors
  1. Blair A. Wormer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristian T. Dacey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristopher B. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joel F. Bradley III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amanda L. Walters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vedra A. Augenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. B. Todd Heniford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Todd Heniford.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Postoperative in-hospital complications
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wormer, B.A., Dacey, K.T., Williams, K.B. et al. The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28, 767–776 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3239-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3239-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation