Outcomes of a virtual-reality simulator-training programme on basic surgical skills in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery

Background The utility of the virtual-reality robotic simulator in training programmes has not been clearly evaluated. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a virtual-reality robotic simulator-training programme on basic surgical skills. Methods A simulator-training programme in robotic surgery, using the da Vinci Skills Simulator, was evaluated in a population including junior and seasoned surgeons, and non-physicians. Their performances on robotic dots and suturing-skin pod platforms before and after virtual-simulation training were rated anonymously by surgeons experienced in robotics. Results 39 participants were enrolled: 14 medical students and residents in surgery, 14 seasoned surgeons, 11 non-physicians. Junior and seasoned surgeons’ performances on platforms were not significantly improved after virtual-reality robotic simulation in any of the skill domains, in contrast to non-physicians. Conclusions The benefits of virtual-reality simulator training on several tasks to basic skills in robotic surgery were not obvious among surgeons in our initial and early experience with the simulator

Autofluorescence lifetime augmented reality as a means for real-time robotic surgery guidance in human patients.

Due to loss of tactile feedback the assessment of tumor margins during robotic surgery is based only on visual inspection, which is neither significantly sensitive nor specific. Here we demonstrate time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy (TRFS) as a novel technique to complement the visual inspection of oral cancers during transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in real-time and without the need for exogenous contrast agents. TRFS enables identification of cancerous tissue by its distinct autofluorescence signature that is associated with the alteration of tissue structure and biochemical profile. A prototype TRFS instrument was integrated synergistically with the da Vinci Surgical robot and the combined system was validated in swine and human patients. Label-free and real-time assessment and visualization of tissue biochemical features during robotic surgery procedure, as demonstrated here, not only has the potential to improve the intraoperative decision making during TORS but also other robotic procedures without modification of conventional clinical protocols

Prevalence of haptic feedback in robot-mediated surgery : a systematic review of literature

© 2017 Springer-Verlag. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0763-4With the successful uptake and inclusion of robotic systems in minimally invasive surgery and with the increasing application of robotic surgery (RS) in numerous surgical specialities worldwide, there is now a need to develop and enhance the technology further. One such improvement is the implementation and amalgamation of haptic feedback technology into RS which will permit the operating surgeon on the console to receive haptic information on the type of tissue being operated on. The main advantage of using this is to allow the operating surgeon to feel and control the amount of force applied to different tissues during surgery thus minimising the risk of tissue damage due to both the direct and indirect effects of excessive tissue force or tension being applied during RS. We performed a two-rater systematic review to identify the latest developments and potential avenues of improving technology in the application and implementation of haptic feedback technology to the operating surgeon on the console during RS. This review provides a summary of technological enhancements in RS, considering different stages of work, from proof of concept to cadaver tissue testing, surgery in animals, and finally real implementation in surgical practice. We identify that at the time of this review, while there is a unanimous agreement regarding need for haptic and tactile feedback, there are no solutions or products available that address this need. There is a scope and need for new developments in haptic augmentation for robot-mediated surgery with the aim of improving patient care and robotic surgical technology further.Peer reviewe

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery.ope

Reducing Cost of Surgery by Avoiding Complications: the Model of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass

Background: Robotic surgery is a complex technology offering technical advantages over conventional methods. Still, clinical outcomes and financial issues have been subjects of debate. Several studies have demonstrated higher costs for robotic surgery when compared to laparoscopy or open surgery. However, other studies showed fewer costly anastomotic complications after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) when compared to laparoscopy. Methods: We collected data for our gastric bypass patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery from June 1997 to July 2010. Demographic data, BMI, complications, mortality, intensive care unit stay, hospitalization, and operating room (OR) costs were analyzed and a cost projection completed. Sensitivity analyses were performed for varied leak rates during laparoscopy, number of robotic cases per month, number of additional staplers during robotic surgery, and varied OR times for robotic cases. Results: Nine-hundred ninety patients underwent gastric bypass surgery at the University Hospital Geneva from June 1997 to July 2010. There were 524 open, 323 laparoscopic, and 143 robotic cases. Significantly fewer anastomotic complications occurred after open and robotic RYGBP when compared to laparoscopy. OR material costs were slightly less for robotic surgery (USD 5,427) than for laparoscopy (USD 5,494), but more than for the open procedure (USD 2,251). Overall, robotic gastric bypass (USD 19,363) was cheaper when compared to laparoscopy (USD 21,697) and open surgery (USD 23,000). Conclusions: Robotic RYGBP can be cost effective due to balancing greater robotic overhead costs with the savings associated with avoiding stapler use and costly anastomotic complication

The distribution of robotic surgery in general and visceral surgery departments in Switzerland - a nationwide inquiry.

OBJECTIVES Since its introduction as a clinical technique, robotic surgery has been extended to different fields of surgery. However, the indications as well as the number of robotic procedures varied in different institutions. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the current use of robotic surgery in general and digestive surgery in Switzerland. METHODS All Swiss surgical departments that are recognized training institutes for postgraduate training in surgery by the Swiss Institute of Medical Education (SIWF) were queried with a detailed questionnaire regarding the use of robotic surgery techniques and were analyzed regarding hospital size and type of hospital. RESULTS Ninety-three departments were queried, and 67 % (n=63) answered the survey. Fifty-eight were public, and five were private institutions. Seventeen (26 %) of the queried departments used robotic surgery in digestive surgery. Four out of 17 (23 %) of the departments that performed robotic surgery were private hospitals, while 13 (77 %) were public institutions. In the majority of departments, robotic surgery of the rectum (n=12; 70.6 %) and colon (n=11; 64.7 %) was performed, followed by hernia procedures (n=8; 47.1 %) and fundoplication (n=7; 41.2 %). Less frequently, pancreatic resections (n=5; 29.4 %), cholecystectomy (n=4; 23.5 %), adrenalectomy (n=4; 23.5 %), gastric bypass (n=3; 17.7 %), gastric sleeve (n=3; 17.7 %), hepatic procedures (n=2; 11.7 %), or small bowel resections (n=1; 5.9 %) were performed as robotic procedures. More than 25 procedures per year per department were performed for hernia surgery (n=5 departments), gastric bypass (n=2 departments), cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and colon surgery (each n=1 department). CONCLUSIONS The number and range of robotic procedures performed in Switzerland varied widely. Higher accreditation for general surgery or subspecialization of visceral surgery of the department was positively associated with the use of robotic techniques, reflecting an unequal availability of robotic surgery

The impact of robotic surgery on gynecologic oncology

The objective of this article was to review the published scientific literature pertaining to robotic surgery and its applications in gynecologic malignancies and to summarize the impact of robotic surgery on the field of gynecologic oncology. Summarizing data from different gynecologic disease-sites, robotic-assisted surgery is safe, feasible, and demonstrates equivalent histopathologic and oncologic outcomes. In general, benefits to robotic surgery include decreased blood loss, fewer perioperative complications and decreased length of hospital stay. Disadvantages include accessibility to robot surgical systems, decreased haptic sensation and fixed cost as well as cost of disposable equipment. As robotic surgery becomes readily available it will be imperative to develop standardized training modalities. Further research is needed to validate the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies

Anesthetic considerations for robot-assisted gynecologic and urology surgery

Robotic surgery was first conceived by the United States military in the 1980s. It rapidly developed in both complexity and utility and, in the early 21st century, modern robotic surgery for gynecologic and urologic surgery gained approval in the United States. Today, an ever-increasing number and variety of surgical procedures enlist robotic-assistance. Numerous anesthetic considerations for robotic surgery exist. A few of the most important aspects of conducting a safe anesthetic include: investigating the patient’s co-morbid conditions, realizing the risks associated with the robotic equipment, and positioning the patient with care. This manuscript reviews the current literature on robotic-assisted surgery for gynecologic and urologic procedures with emphasis on history, marketplace, type, variety, and expansion of surgery in these fields. The review focuses on practical considerations for the anesthesiologist caring for patients undergoing robotic surgery. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative issues are explored in detail. The rapid expansion of robotic surgery worldwide requires thoughtful consideration of the technique’s weaknesses and associated risks. This review provides a roadmap to adequately prepare anesthesiologists for care of gynecologic and urologic patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery