Skip to main content
Log in

Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In the last few years, robotics has been applied in clinical practice for a variety of laparoscopic procedures. This study reports our preliminary experience using robotics in the field of general surgery to evaluate the advantages and limitations of robot-assisted laparoscopy.

Methods

Thirty-two consecutive patients were scheduled to undergo robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in our units from March 2002 to July 2003. The indications were cholecystectomy, 20 patients; right adrenalectomy, two points; bilateral varicocelectomy, two points; Heller’s cardiomyotomy, two points; Nissen’s fundoplication, two points; total splenectomy, one point; right colectomy, one point; left colectomy, 1 point; and bilateral inguinal hernia repair, one point. In all cases, we used the da Vinci surgical system, with the surgeon at the robotic work station and an assistant by the operating table.

Results

Twenty-nine of 32 procedures (90.6%) were completed robotically, whereas three were converted to laparoscopic surgery. Conversion to laparoscopy was due in two patients to minor bleeding that could not be managed robotically and to robot malfunction in the third patient. There were no deaths. Median hospital stay was 2.2 days (range, 2–8).

Conclusions

The main advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery are the availability of three-dimensional vision and easier instrument manipulation than can be obtain with standard laparoscopy. The learning curve to master the robot was ≥ 10 robotic procedures. The main limitations are the large diameter of the instruments (8 mm) and the limited number of robotic arms (maximum, three). We consider these technical shortcomings to be the cause for our conversions, because it is difficult to manage bleeding episodes with only two operating instruments. The benefit to the patient must be evaluated carefully and proven before this technology can become widely accepted in general surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. GH Ballantyne (2002) ArticleTitleRobotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring: review of early clinical results Surg Endosc 10 1389–1402 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-8283-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. GH Ballantyne F Moll (2003) ArticleTitleThe da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery Surg Clin North Am 6 1293–1304

    Google Scholar 

  3. GB Cadière J Himpens O Germay R Izizaw M Degueldre J Vandromme E Capelluto J Bruyns (2001) ArticleTitleFeasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases World J Surg 11 1467–1477

    Google Scholar 

  4. WH Chapman Suffix3rd RJ Albrecht VB Kim JA Young WR Chitwood SuffixJr (2002) ArticleTitleComputer-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy with the da Vinci surgical robot J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 3 155–159 Occurrence Handle10.1089/10926420260188038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. PM Goh D Lomanto JB So (2002) ArticleTitleRobotic-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy Surg Endosc 1 216–217

    Google Scholar 

  6. JC Gould WS Melvin (2003) ArticleTitleTelerobotic foregut and esophageal surgery Surg Clin North Am 6 1421–1427

    Google Scholar 

  7. S Horgan D Vanuno (2001) ArticleTitleRobots in laparoscopic surgery J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 6 415–419 Occurrence Handle10.1089/10926420152761950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. K Hourmont W Chung S Pereira A Wasielewski R Davies GH Ballantyne (2003) ArticleTitleRobotic versus telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: duration of surgery and outcomes Surg Clin North Am 6 1445–1462

    Google Scholar 

  9. A Imme P Caglia L Gandolfo G Cavallaro M Donati C Amodeo (2002) ArticleTitleRobotic techniques in laparoscopic surgery Chir Ital 1 111–113

    Google Scholar 

  10. BP Jacob M Gagner (2003) ArticleTitleRobotics and general surgery Surg Clin North Am 6 1405–1419

    Google Scholar 

  11. VB Kim WH Chapman RJ Albrecht BM Bailey JA Young LW Nifong WR Chitwood SuffixJr (2002) ArticleTitleEarly experience with telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using da Vinci Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12 33–40 Occurrence Handle12008760

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. J Marescaux J Leroy M Gagner F Rubino D Mutter M Vix SE Butner et al. (2001) ArticleTitleTransatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery Nature 13 710–714

    Google Scholar 

  13. J Marescaux MK Smith D Folscher F Jamali B Malassagne J Leroy (2002) ArticleTitleTelerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial clinical experience with 25 patients Ann Surg 3 446–447 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-200203000-00022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. S Merola P Weber A Wasielewski GH Ballantyne (2002) ArticleTitleComparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1 46–51

    Google Scholar 

  15. TA Rockall A Darzi (2003) ArticleTitleRobot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery Surg Clin North Am 6 1463–1468

    Google Scholar 

  16. JP Ruurda IA Broeders (2003) ArticleTitleRobot-assisted laparoscopic intestinal anastomosis Surg Endosc 2 236–241 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-002-9016-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. JP Ruurda IA Broeders RP Simmermacher IH Rinkes TJ Vroonhoven ParticleVan (2002) ArticleTitleFeasibility of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: an evaluation of 35 robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomies Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12 41–45 Occurrence Handle12008761

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. S Schluender J Conrad CM Divino B Gurland (2003) ArticleTitleRobot-assisted laparoscopic repair of ventral hernia with intracorporeal suturing Surg Endosc 6 656–658

    Google Scholar 

  19. N Stylopoulos D Rattner (2003) ArticleTitleRobotics and ergonomics Surg Clin North Am 6 1321–1337

    Google Scholar 

  20. GT Sung IS Gill (2003) ArticleTitleRobotic renal and adrenal surgery Surg Clin North Am 6 1469–1482

    Google Scholar 

  21. P Yohannes P Rotariu P Pinto AD Smith BR Lee (2002) ArticleTitleComparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 1 39–45 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01717-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Esposito.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Corcione, F., Esposito, C., Cuccurullo, D. et al. Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19, 117–119 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9004-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9004-9

Keywords

Navigation