Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted surgery in elderly and very elderly population: our experience in oncologic and general surgery with literature review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although there is no agreement on a definition of elderly, commonly an age cutoff of ≥65 or 75 years is used. Nowadays most of malignancies requiring surgical treatment are diagnosed in old population. Comorbidities and frailty represent well-known problems during and after surgery in elderly patients. Minimally invasive surgery offers earlier postoperative mobilization, less blood loss, lower morbidity as well as reduction in hospital stay and as such represents an interesting and validated option for elderly population. Robot-assisted surgery is a recent improvement of conventional minimally invasive surgery.

Aims

We provided a complete review of old and very old patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery for oncologic and general surgery interventions.

Patients and methods

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery in our General Surgery Unit from September 2012 to June 2016 was conducted. Analysis was performed for the entire cohort and in particular for three of the most performed surgeries (gastric resections, right colectomy, and liver resections) classifying patients into three age groups: ≤64, 65–79, and ≥80. Data from these three different age groups were compared and examined in respect of different outcomes: ASA score, comorbidities, oncologic outcomes, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, geriatric events, mortality, etc.

Results

Using our in-patient robotic surgery database, we retrospectively examined 363 patients, who underwent robot-assisted surgery for different diseases (402 different robotic procedures): colorectal surgery, upper GI, HPB, etc.; the oncologic procedures were 81%. Male were 56%. The mean age was 65.63 years (18–89). Patients aged ≥65 years represented 61% and ≥80 years 13%. Overall conversion rate was of 6%, most in the group 65–79 years (59% of all conversions). The more frequent diseases treated were colorectal surgery 43%, followed by hepatobilopancreatic surgery 23.4%, upper gastro-intestinal 23.2%, and others 10.4%.

Discussion

Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and effective technique in aging patient population too. There was no increased risk of death or morbidity compared to younger patients in the three groups examined. A higher conversion rate was observed in our experience for patients aged 65–79. Prolonged operative time and in any cases steep positions (Trendelenburg) have not represented a problem for the majority of patients.

Conclusions

In any case, considering the high direct costs, minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery should be performed on a case-by-case basis, tailored to each patient with their specific histories and comorbidities.

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. Office for National Statistics. Ageing—fastest increase in the ‘oldest old’. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_258607.pdf

  2. Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Cote R et al (2001) Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1054 patients. J Clin Oncol 19:666–675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yee KW, Pater JL, Pho L et al (2003) Enrollment of older patients in cancer treatment trials in Canada: why is age a barrier? J Clin Oncol 21:1618–1623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. United States Census. U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-243.html

  5. Smith BD, Smith GL, Hurria A et al (2009) Future of cancer incidence in the United States: burdens upon an aging, changing nation. J Clin Oncol 27:2758–2765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB et al (2006) Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 203:865–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamel MB, Henderson WG, Khuri SF et al (2005) Surgical outcomes for patients aged 80 and older: morbidity and Mortality from major noncardiac surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:424–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults (2015) Post-operative delirium in older adults: best practice statement from the American Geriatrics Society. J Am Coll Surg 220:136–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dodds C, Foo I, Jones K et al (2013) Peri-operative care of elderly patients—an urgent need for change: a consensus statement to provide guidance for specialist and non-specialist anaesthetists. Perioper Med (Lond) 2:6. doi:10.1186/2047-0525-2-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lev D, Pollock RE (2010) Managing elderly soft tissue sarcoma patients-should age drive treatment? Ann Surg Oncol 17:1725–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lahat G, Dhuka AR, Lahat S et al (2009) Complete soft tissue sarcoma resection is a viable treatment option for select elderly patients. Ann Surg Oncol 16:2579–2586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chereau E, Ballester M, Selle F et al (2011) Ovarian cancer in the elderly: impact of surgery on morbidity and survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:537–542

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fornara P, Doehn C, Frese R et al (2001) Laparoscopic nephrectomy in young-old, old-old, and oldest-old adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci 56:M287–M291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Scarpa M, di Cristofaro L, Cortinovis M et al (2013) Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer: quality of Life and Satisfaction with care in elderly patients. Surg Endosc 27:2911–2920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mutch MG (2006) Laparoscopic colectomy in the elderly: when is too old. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 19:33–39. doi:10.1055/s-2006-939529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Rocco G, Weder W (2013) Lung surgery in the elderly today. Lung Cancer 80:115–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Korc-Grodzicki B, Downey RJ, Shahrokni A et al (2014) Surgical considerations in older adults with cancer. J Clin Oncol 32:2647–2653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Truta B, Allen BA, Conrad PG et al (2005) A comparison of the phenotype and genotype in adenomatous polyposis patients with and without a family history. Fam Cancer 4:127–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thirlwell C, Howarth KM, Segditsas S et al (2007) Investigation of pathogenic mechanisms in multiple colorectal adenoma patients without germline APC or MYH/MUTYH mutations. Br J Cancer 96:1729–1734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rocca A, Calise F, Marino G et al (2014) Primary giant hepatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: a case report. Int J Surg 12(Suppl 1):S218–S221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cattaneo F, Guerra G, Parisi M et al (2015) Expression of formyl-peptide receptors in human lung carcinoma. Anticancer Res 35:2769–2774

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rippa E, Altieri F, Chiara Di Stadio S et al (2015) Ectopic expression of gastrokine 1 in gastric cancer cells up-regulates tight and adherens junction proteins network. Pathol Res Pract 211:577–583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moccia F, Dragoni S, Lodola F et al (2012) Store-dependent Ca2+ entry in endothelial progenitor cells as a perspective tool to enhance cell-based therapy and adverse tumour vascularisation. Curr Med Chem 19:5802–5818

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lodola F, Laforenza U, Bonetti E et al (2012) Store-operated ca(2+) entry is remodelled and controls in vitro angiogenesis in endothelial progenitor cells isolated from tumoral patients. PLoS ONE 7:e42541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Dragoni S, Laforenza U, Bonetti E et al (2014) Enhanced expression of Stim, Orai, and TRPC transcripts and proteins in endothelial progenitor cells isolated from patients with primary myelofibrosis. PLoS ONE 9:e91099

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Moccia F, Lodola F, Dragoni S et al (2014) Ca2+ signalling in endothelial progenitor cells: a novel means to improve cell-based therapy and impair tumour vascularisation. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 12:87–105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dragoni S, Turin I, Laforenza U et al (2014) Store-operated ca(2+) entry does not control proliferation in primary cultures of human metastatic renal cellular carcinoma. Biomed Res Int 2014:739494

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Moccia F, Zuccolo E, Poletto V et al (2015) Endothelial progenitor cells support tumour growth and metastatisation: implications for the resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy. Tumour Biol 36:6603–6614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dragoni S, Reforgiato M, Zuccolo E et al (2015) Dysregulation of VEGF-induced pro-angiogenic Ca2+ oscillations in primary myelofibrosis-derived endothelial colony forming cells. Exp Hematol 43:1019–1030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zuccolo E, Bottino C, Diofano F et al (2016) Constitutive store-operated Ca2+ entry leads to enhanced nitric oxide production and proliferation in infantile hemangioma-derived endothelial colony forming cells. Stem Cells Dev 25:301–319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Poletto V, Dragoni S, Lim D et al (2016) Endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ handling and apoptotic resistance in tumor-derived endothelial colony forming cells. J Cell Biochem 117:2260–2271. doi:10.1002/jcb.25524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moccia F, Zuccolo E, Poletto V et al (2016) Targeting Stim and Orai proteins as an alternative approach in anticancer therapy. Curr Med Chem 23:3450–3480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Berra-Romani R, Avelino-Cruz JE, Raqeeb A et al (2013) Ca2+-dependent nitric oxide release in the injured endothelium of excised rat aorta: a promising mechanism applying in vascular prosthetic devices in aging patients. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S40

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Moccia F, Dragoni S, Cinelli M et al (2013) How to utilize Ca2+ signals to rejuvenate the repairative phenotype of senescent endothelial progenitor cells in elderly patients affected by cardiovascular diseases: a useful therapeutic support of surgical approach? BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ballesta Lopez C, Cid JA, Poves I et al (2003) Laparoscopic surgery in the elderly patient. Surg Endosc 17:333–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Venkat R, Edil BH, Schulick RD et al (2012) Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is associated with significantly less overall morbidity compared to the open technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 255:1048–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Permpongkosol S, Bagga HS, Romero FR et al (2006) Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for the treatment of pathological T1N0M0 renal cell carcinoma: a 5-year survival rate. J Urol 176:1984–1988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ballantyne GH (2007) Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2–safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc 21:1054–1062

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Ceribelli C et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic management of cardia carcinoma according to Siewert recommendations. Int J Med Robot 7(2):170–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ceccarelli G, Codacci-Pisanelli M, Patriti A et al (2013) Robotic-assisted transperitoneal nephron-sparing surgery for small renal masses with associated surgical procedures: surgical technique and preliminary experience. Updates Surg 65:183–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Caruso S, Patriti A, Roviello F et al (2016) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current considerations. World J Gastroenterol 22:5694–5717

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G et al (2011) Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 25:3815–3824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bianchi PP, Petz W, Luca F et al (2014) Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks. Front Oncol 6:98

    Google Scholar 

  45. Coratti A, Di Marino M, Coratti F et al (2016) Initial experience with robotic pancreatic surgery: technical feasibility and oncological implications. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:31–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lavoue V, Zeng X, Lau S et al (2014) Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 133:556–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vaknin Z, Perri T, Lau S et al (2010) Outcome and quality of life in a prospective cohort of the first 100 robotic surgeries for endometrial cancer, with focus on elderly patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20:1367–1373

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Uyar D, Frasure HE, Markman M et al (2005) Treatment patterns by decade of life in elderly women (≥70 years of age) with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 98:403–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sundararajan V, Hershman D, Grann VR et al (2002) Variations in the use of chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 20:173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rogers CG, Sammon JD, Sukumar S et al (2013) Robot assisted radical prostatectomy for elderly patients with high risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 31:193–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci 56:M146–M156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Spyropoulou D, Pallis AG, Leotsinidis M et al (2014) Completion of radiotherapy is associated with the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 score in elderly patients with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol 5:20–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Puts MT, Hardt J, Monette J et al (2012) Use of geriatric assessment for older adults in the oncology setting: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:1133–1163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Polanczyk CA, Marcantonio E, Goldman L et al (2001) Impact of age on perioperative complications and length of stay in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med 134:637–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Finlayson E, Fan Z, Birkmeyer JD (2007) Outcomes in octogenarians undergoing high-risk cancer operation: a national study. J Am Coll Surg 205:729–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dekker JW, van den Broek CB, Bastiaannet E et al (2011) Importance of the first postoperative year in the prognosis of elderly colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1533–1539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Buchner DM, Wagner EH (1992) Preventing frail health. Clin Geriatr Med 8:1–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Campbell AJ, Buchner DM (1997) Unstable disability and the fluctuations of frailty. Age Ageing 26:315–318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Afilalo J, Eisenberg MJ, Morin JF et al (2010) Gait speed as an incremental predictor of mortality and major morbidity in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1668–1676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ et al (2010) Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg 210:901–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee DH, Buth KJ, Martin BJ et al (2010) Frail patients are at increased risk for mortality and prolonged institutional care after cardiac surgery. Circulation 121:973–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Robinson TN, Wallace JI, Wu DS et al (2011) Accumulated frailty characteristics predict postoperative discharge institutionalization in the geriatric patient. J Am Coll Surg 213:37–42

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Revenig LM, Canter DJ, Taylor MD et al (2013) Too frail for surgery? Initial results of a large multidisciplinary prospective study examining preoperative variables predictive of poor surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 217:665–670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim SW, Han HS, Jung HW et al (2014) Multidimensional frailty score for the prediction of postoperative mortality risk. JAMA Surg 149:633–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Harari D, Hopper A, Dhesi J et al (2007) Proactive care of older people undergoing surgery (‘POPS’): designing, embedding, evaluating and funding a comprehensive geriatric assessment service for older elective surgical patients. Age Ageing 36:190–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ford PN, Thomas I, Cook TM et al (2007) Determinants of outcome in critically ill octogenarians after surgery: an observational study. Br J Anaesth 99:824–829. doi:10.1093/bja/aem307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Dyer CB, Ashton CM, Teasdale TA (1995) Postoperative delirium. A review of 80 primary data-collection studies. Arch Intern Med 155:461–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Dodds C, Kumar CM, Servin F (2007) Oxford Anaesthesia Library: anaesthesia for the elderly patient. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Levkoff SE, Marcantonio ER (1994) Delirium: a major diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians caring for the elderly. Compr Ther 20:550–557

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kassin MT, Owen RM, Perez SD et al (2012) Risk factors for 30-day hospital readmission among general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 215:322–330

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Extermann M, Aapro M, Bernabei R et al (2005) Task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology: use of comprehensive geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: recommendations from the task force on CGA of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 55:241–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Chow WB, Rosenthal RA, Merkow RP et al (2012) American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program; American Geriatrics Society: optimal preoperative assessment of the geriatric surgical patient: A best practices guideline from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the American Geriatrics Society. J Am Coll Surg 215:453–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Solomon DH, Burton JR, Lundebjerg NE, Eisner J (2000) The new frontier: increasing geriatrics expertise in surgical and medical specialties. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:702–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bell RH Jr, Drach GW, Rosenthal RA (2011) Proposed competencies in geriatric patient care for use in assessment for initial and continued board certification of surgical specialists. J Am Coll Surg 213:683–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Wright RJ et al (2001) Reducing delirium after hip fracture: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 49:516–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Miura LN, DiPiero AR, Homer LD (2009) Effects of a geriatrician-led hip fracture program: improvements in clinical and economic outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 57:159–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Shuford MD, McDougall EM, Chang SS et al (2004) Complications of contemporary radical nephrectomy: comparison of open vs. laparoscopic approach. Urol Oncol 22:121–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Allardyce RA, Bagshaw PF, Frampton CM et al (2010) Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study Group. Australasian laparoscopic colon cancer study shows that elderly patients may benefit from lower postoperative complication rates following laparoscopic versus open resection. Br J Surg 97:86–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. She WH, Poon JT, Fan JK et al (2013) Outcome of laparoscopic colectomy for cancer in elderly patients. Surg Endosc 27:308–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Scribner DR Jr, Walker JL, Johnson GA et al (2001) Surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer in the elderly: is laparoscopy feasible? Gynecol Oncol 83:563–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Obeid NM, Azuh O, Reddy S et al (2012) Predictors of critical care-related complications in colectomy patients using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: exploring frailty and aggressive laparoscopic approaches. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72:878–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Gonzalez-Ayora S, Pastor C, Guadalajara H et al (2016) Enhanced recovery care after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Compliance and outcomes of a multicenter study from the Spanish working group on ERAS. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:1625–1631. doi:10.1007/s00384-016-2621-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Lau S, Vaknin Z, Ramana-Kumar AV et al (2012) Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol 119:717–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:360 e1–360 e9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Orlando G, Gervasi R, Luppino IM et al (2014) The role of a multidisciplinary approach in the choice of the best surgery approach in a super-super-obesity case. Int J Surg 12:103–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.05.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A et al (2008) What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 111:41–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D et al (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170:1738–1741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Barr C, Madhuri TK, Prabhu P et al (2014) Cerebral oedema following robotic surgery: a rare complication. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290:1041–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Rupp-Montpetit K, Moody ML (2005) Visual loss as a complication of non-ophthalmic surgery: a review of the literature. Insight 30:10–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Doo DW, Guntupalli SR, Corr BR et al (2015) Comparative surgical outcomes for endometrial cancer patients 65 years old or older staged with robotics or laparotomy. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3687–3694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kilgore JE, Jackson AL, Ko EM et al (2013) Recurrence-free and 5-year survival following robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 129:49–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Amato B, Villa F, Compagna R et al (2002) Organizational models in robotica assisted surgery. IJCI Int J Clin Investig 10:45–48

    Google Scholar 

  94. Rispoli C, Rocco N, Iannone L et al (2009) Developing guidelines in geriatric surgery: role of the grade system. BMC Geriatr 9(Suppl.1):A99

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, Hospital of Arezzo, Arezzo, Italy

    Graziano Ceccarelli, Enrico Andolfi, Alessia Biancafarina, Aldo Rocca, Marta Scricciolo, Barbara Frezza, Egidio Miranda, Marco De Prizio & Andrea Fontani

  2. Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Sergio Pansini, 80131, Naples, Italy

    Aldo Rocca

  3. Department of Surgical Specialities and Nephrology, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy

    Maurizio Amato & Marco Milone

Authors
  1. Graziano Ceccarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enrico Andolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessia Biancafarina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aldo Rocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maurizio Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Milone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marta Scricciolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Barbara Frezza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Egidio Miranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marco De Prizio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andrea Fontani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aldo Rocca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Statement of human and animal rights

The study was approved by the local Human Investigation Committee and complete information regarding it was clearly explained.

Informed consent

A written formal consent was obtained from all the subjects enrolled.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ceccarelli, G., Andolfi, E., Biancafarina, A. et al. Robot-assisted surgery in elderly and very elderly population: our experience in oncologic and general surgery with literature review. Aging Clin Exp Res 29 (Suppl 1), 55–63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0676-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0676-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation