scholarly journals Are Costs of Robot-Assisted Surgery Warranted for Gynecological Procedures?

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van Dam ◽  
Jan Hauspy ◽  
Luc Verkinderen ◽  
Xuan Bich Trinh ◽  
Pieter-Jan van Dam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Oncologic Outcome ◽  
Gynecologic Surgery ◽  
Variable Cost ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Video Laparoscopy ◽  
Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery ◽  
Robot Assisted Surgery

The exponential use of robotic surgery is not the result of evidence-based benefits but mainly driven by the manufacturers, patients and enthusiastic surgeons. The present review of the literature shows that robot-assisted surgery is consistently more expensive than video-laparoscopy and in many cases open surgery. The average additional variable cost for gynecological procedures was about 1600 USD, rising to more than 3000 USD when the amortized cost of the robot itself was included. Generally most robotic and laparoscopic procedures have less short-term morbidity, blood loss, intensive care unit, and hospital stay than open surgery. Up to now no major consistent differences have been found between robot-assisted and classic video-assisted procedures for these factors. No comparative data are available on long-term morbidity and oncologic outcome after open, robotic, and laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. It seems that currently only for very complex surgical procedures, such as cardiac surgery, the costs of robotics can be competitive to open surgical procedures. In order to stay viable, robotic programs will need to pay for themselves on a per case basis and the costs of robotic surgery will have to be reduced.

scholarly journals Interim safety analysis of the first-in-human clinical trial of the Versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted device for use in minimal access surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dhananjay Kelkar ◽  
Mahindra A. Borse ◽  
Girish P. Godbole ◽  
Utkrant Kurlekar ◽  
Mark Slack
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Minimal Access Surgery ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Access Surgery ◽  
Surgical System

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to provide an interim safety analysis of the first 30 surgical procedures performed using the Versius Surgical System. Background Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been developed to overcome some of the important limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The new system is currently undergoing a first-in-human prospective clinical trial to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the device when performing minimal access surgery (MAS). Methods Procedures were performed using Versius by a lead surgeon supported by an operating room (OR) team. Male or female patients aged between 18 and 65 years old and requiring elective minor or intermediate gynaecological or general surgical procedures were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the rate of unplanned conversion of procedures to other MAS or open surgery. Results The procedures included nine cholecystectomies, six robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomies, four appendectomies, five diagnostic laparoscopy cases, two oophorectomies, two fallopian tube recanalisation procedures, an ovarian cystectomy and a salpingo-oophorectomy procedure. All procedures were completed successfully without the need for conversion to MAS or open surgery. No patient returned to the OR within 24 h of surgery and readmittance rate at 30 and 90 days post-surgery was 1/30 (3.3%) and 2/30 (6.7%), respectively. Conclusions This first-in-human interim safety analysis demonstrates that the Versius Surgical System is safe and can be used to successfully perform minor or intermediate gynaecological and general surgery procedures. The cases presented here provide evidence that the Versius clinical trial can continue to extend recruitment and begin to include major procedures, in alignment with the IDEAL-D Framework Stage 2b: Exploration.

Incidence of Surgical Site Infection Associated with Robotic Surgery

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 822-827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth D. Hermsen ◽  
Tim Hinze ◽  
Harlan Sayles ◽  
Lee Sholtz ◽  
Mark E. Rupp
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
National Data ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Surgical Duration ◽  
Robot Assisted Surgery

Objective.Robot-assisted surgery is minimally invasive and associated with less blood loss and shorter recovery time than open surgery. We aimed to determine the duration of robot-assisted surgical procedures and the incidence of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) and to compare our data with the SSI incidence for open procedures according to national data.Design.Retrospective cohort study.Setting.A 689-bed academic medical center.Patients.All patients who underwent a surgical procedure with use of a robotic surgical system during the period from 2000-2007.Methods.SSIs were defined and procedure types were classified according to National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. National data for comparison were from 1992-2004. Because of small sample size, procedures were grouped according to surgical site or wound classification.Results.Sixteen SSIs developed after 273 robot-assisted procedures (5.9%). The mean surgical duration was 333.6 minutes. Patients who developed SSI had longer mean surgical duration than did patients who did not (558 vs 318 minutes; P<.001). The prostate and genitourinary group had 5.74 SSIs per 100 robot-assisted procedures (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.81–11.37), compared with 0.85 SSIs per 100 open procedures from national data. The gynecologic group had 10.00 SSIs per 100 procedures (95% CI, 2.79–30.10), compared with 1.72 SSIs per 100 open procedures. The colon and herniorrhaphy groups had 33.33 SSIs per 100 procedures (95% CI, 9.68–70.00) and 37.50 SSIs per 100 procedures (95% CI, 13.68–69.43), respectively, compared with 5.88 and 1.62 SSIs per 100 open procedures from national data. Patients with a clean-contaminated wound developed 6.1 SSIs per 100 procedures (95% CI, 3.5–10.3), compared with 2.59 SSIs per 100 open procedures. No significant differences in SSI rates were found for other groups.Conclusions.Increased incidence of SSI after some types of robot-assisted surgery compared with traditional open surgery may be related to the learning curve associated with use of the robot.

scholarly journals SURGEON AND THE MACHINE – ROBOTS IN SURGERY

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-78
Author(s):  
Baki Ekci ◽  
Gokhan Agturk
Keyword(s):  
Open Surgery ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Surgical Robots ◽  
Da Vinci Robot ◽  
Surgical Equipment ◽  
Medical Assistants ◽  
Surgical Devices ◽  
Medical Sector ◽  
Robot Assisted Surgery

The use of tools and machines in the field of medicine is very old, although the use of robots datesback to several decades. The purpose of using machinery and robots in the industry is to reduceproduction costs in the industry. Unlike machines, robots are energy-driven mechanical systemsdesigned to perform learned operations and movements in a much safer faster and more economicalway. In the medical sector, robots used outside operations are used to automate certain tasks. Butthe surgical robots are controlled by the surgeons and used to facilitate the surgeons' work. In otherwords, they do not move except for the surgeon’s control and do not perform an automated procedureand they do not have artificial intelligence now. In this context, it is more appropriate to use the termrobotic-assisted surgical equipment, robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery or roboticallyassisted surgical devices rather than using the word “robot”. In short, robots used in surgeries aremachines designed to perform more complex, thinner, more precise tasks. In this review, we will beevaluating the robot, the different medical assistants and robotic surgery, the da Vinci robot, and thedifferences between the open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robot-assisted surgery.

A Comparative Direct Cost Analysis of Pediatric Urologic Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Open Surgery: Could Robot-Assisted Surgery Be Less Expensive?

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 871-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney K. Rowe ◽  
Michael W. Pierce ◽  
Katherine C. Tecci ◽  
Constance S. Houck ◽  
James Mandell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Direct Cost ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Robot Assisted Surgery

scholarly journals Simultaneous robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer and prostatic lesions

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Kojima ◽  
Kazuhiro Sakamoto ◽  
Shigeo Horie ◽  
Yuichi Tomiki ◽  
Masaya Kawai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Anterior Resection ◽  
Surgical Procedure ◽  
Low Anterior Resection ◽  
Gastrointestinal Surgery ◽  
Pelvic Surgery ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
The World ◽  
Robot Assisted Surgery

Abstract Robotic surgery has become prevalent in many departments all over the world because of its usefulness. It is used in many cases, as well as in gastrointestinal surgery, which treats the rectum as pelvic surgery, urology and gynecology. We experienced two cases of joint surgery, with urology as pelvic surgery. The patient underwent robot-assisted low anterior resection, combined prostate resection and ileostomy for prostate invasion of rectal cancer. He was discharged without any complications. Robotic surgery was considered to be useful in surgery to manipulate the same area. In addition, it was considered that smoother and safer surgical procedure could be possible by conducting preoperative meetings with the participating departments.

Patient Preparation and Positioning on Robot-Assisted and Robotic Surgeries

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Charalambos Rafail Vasilopoulos ◽  
Dimitrios Dedousis ◽  
John Klavdianos ◽  
Konstantinos Deligiorgis ◽  
Athanasios Anastasiou
Keyword(s):  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Patient Preparation ◽  
Clinical Interest ◽  
Robotic Surgeries

The field of robotic surgery is being developed and is increasingly being applied to many and different surgical procedures. This results in the need of looking for different patient placements, which will give the surgeon the best view of the area of clinical interest. The purpose of this paper is to study and investigate the various ways of patient preparation and positioning in the field of robotic surgery. Also, this paper proposes a classification and comparing between these different positions, depending on the procedure.

scholarly journals Robotic Surgery in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery: A Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caio M. Oliveira ◽  
Hiep T. Nguyen ◽  
Alberto R. Ferraz ◽  
Karen Watters ◽  
Brian Rosman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Robotic Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Head And Neck Surgery ◽  
Robotic Assistance ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Complex Surgical Procedures ◽  
Robot Assisted Surgery

Recent advancements in robotics technology have allowed more complex surgical procedures to be performed using minimally invasive approaches. In this article, we reviewed the role of robotic assistance in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. We highlight the advantages of robot-assisted surgery and its clinical application in this field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document