Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery; a useful tool in resident training-the Peoria experience, 2002-2009

• Published in: The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery Vol. 6; no. 4; pp. 386 - 393
• Main Authors: Huettner, Franziska, Dynda, Danuta, Ryan, Michael, Doubet, Jamie, Crawford, David L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.12.2010
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analysis of variance; Bismaleimides; Body size (biology); Colectomy - methods; Colon; da Vinci; Female; General Surgery - education; Humans; Internship and Residency; Male; Management information systems; Middle Aged; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods; Prospective Studies; resident; robotic colectomy; robotic esophagomyotomy; robotic hiatal hernia repair; robotic Nissen fundoplication; Robotics; Robotics - methods; Robots; Surgeons; Surgery; Time Factors
• ISSN: 1478-5951; 1478-596X; 1478-596X
• DOI: 10.1002/rcs.342

Background The purpose of this study was to review the use of robotic‐assisted general surgery at our institution. We evaluated the 8 year experience of one minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellowship‐trained surgeon in Peoria, IL, performing 240 cases of foregut, colon, solid organ and biliary surgery using the da Vinci system, with resident assistance. Foregut and colon procedures are the fifth and sixth most commonly performed procedures of the senior author annually. Methods An IRB‐approved retrospective review of prospectively collected data representing 124 foregut and 102 colon operations was performed. Data analysed were procedure performed and indications for surgery, gender, age, body mass index (BMI), estimated blood loss (EBL), port set‐up time (PST), robot operating time (ROT), total case time (TCT), length of stay (LOS), complications, conversions and resident involvement were recorded. Fourteen cases were excluded from the data review. Statistical analysis using the ANOVA test was applied. A specific review of resident participation was performed. Results Times for 226 foregut and colon cases were: PST 31.2 ± 9.4 (range 10–64) min, ROT 119.3 ± 41.5 (range 12–306) min, and TCT 194.8 ± 50.3 (range 50–380) min. The EBL was 48.6 ± 55.0 (range 5–500) ml, BMI 28.5 ± 4.7 (range 15.4–46.8) kg/m2, and median LOS 2.0 (range 0–27) days. The overall complication rate was 13.3%. No deaths occurred. Over the 8 year study period the number of cases participated in by residents was 0, 16, 22, 15, 29, 26, 28 and 10 (as of June 2009), respectively. Conclusion This series demonstrates the technical feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for the foregut and colon in a clinical setting where the surgeon does far more of other types of MIS. This series compares favorably with the literature. Incorporation of robotic training in the curriculum has allowed residents to learn robotic techniques in an effective manner. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.