Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 8/2005

01-08-2005 | Original Scientific Reports

A Critical Comparison of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Splenectomies

Authors: Johannes Bodner, M.D., Reinhold Kafka-Ritsch, M.D., Paolo Lucciarini, M.D., John H. Fish III, M.D., Thomas Schmid, M.D.

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 8/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

The benefit of robotic systems for general surgery is a matter of debate. We compare our initial series of robotic splenectomies with our first series of conventional laparoscopic ones. A retrospective analysis of the first six robotic versus the first six conventional laparoscopic splenectomies is presented. Patients were matched with regard to age, bodymass index, ASA score, and preoperative platelet levels. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Size and weight of the resected specimens were comparable in both groups. Median overall operating time was 154 (range, 115–292) min for the robotic and 127 (range, 95–174) min for the laparoscopic group. No complications occurred. There were no open conversions. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 (robotic group) and 6 (laparoscopic group) days. Median average costs were $6927 for the robotic procedure versus $4084 for the conventional laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.05). Minimally invasive splenectomies are feasible using either conventional laparoscopic techniques or the da Vinci™ robotic system. In this analysis, procedures performed with the da Vinci™ robotic system resulted in prolonged overall operative time and significantly higher procedural costs. The use of a robotic system for laparoscopic splenectomy offers, at this stage, no relevant benefit and thus is not justified.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Delaitre B, Maignien B. Splenectomy by the laparoscopic approach. Report of a case. Presse Med. 1991;20:2263 Delaitre B, Maignien B. Splenectomy by the laparoscopic approach. Report of a case. Presse Med. 1991;20:2263
2.
3.
go back to reference Hashizume M, Sugimachi K, Ueno K. Laparoscopic splenectomy with an ultrasonic dissector. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992;327:438PubMed Hashizume M, Sugimachi K, Ueno K. Laparoscopic splenectomy with an ultrasonic dissector. N. Engl. J. Med. 1992;327:438PubMed
4.
go back to reference Flowers JL, Lefor AT, Steers J, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with hematologic diseases. Ann. Surg. 1996;224:19–28CrossRefPubMed Flowers JL, Lefor AT, Steers J, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with hematologic diseases. Ann. Surg. 1996;224:19–28CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Donini A, Baccarani U, Terrosu G, et al. Laparoscopic vs open splenectomy in the management of hematologic diseases. Surg. Endosc. 1999;13:1220–1225CrossRefPubMed Donini A, Baccarani U, Terrosu G, et al. Laparoscopic vs open splenectomy in the management of hematologic diseases. Surg. Endosc. 1999;13:1220–1225CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Katkhouda N, Hurwitz MB, Rivera RT, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy: outcome and efficacy in 103 consecutive patients. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:568–578CrossRefPubMed Katkhouda N, Hurwitz MB, Rivera RT, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy: outcome and efficacy in 103 consecutive patients. Ann. Surg. 1998;228:568–578CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Velanovich V, Shurafa MS. Clinical and quality of life outcomes of laparoscopic and open splenectomy for haematological diseases. Eur. J. Surg. 2001;167:23–28CrossRefPubMed Velanovich V, Shurafa MS. Clinical and quality of life outcomes of laparoscopic and open splenectomy for haematological diseases. Eur. J. Surg. 2001;167:23–28CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Friedman RL, Fallas MJ, Carroll BJ, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy for ITP. The gold standard. Surg. Endosc. 1996;10:991–995CrossRefPubMed Friedman RL, Fallas MJ, Carroll BJ, et al. Laparoscopic splenectomy for ITP. The gold standard. Surg. Endosc. 1996;10:991–995CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Winslow ER, Brunt LM. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open splenectomy: a meta-analysis with an emphasis on complications. Surgery 2003;134: 647–653CrossRefPubMed Winslow ER, Brunt LM. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open splenectomy: a meta-analysis with an emphasis on complications. Surgery 2003;134: 647–653CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Cordera F, Long KH, Nagorney DM, et al. Open versus laparoscopic splenectomy for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: clinical and economic analysis. Surgery 2003;134:45–52CrossRefPubMed Cordera F, Long KH, Nagorney DM, et al. Open versus laparoscopic splenectomy for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: clinical and economic analysis. Surgery 2003;134:45–52CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
go back to reference Chapman WH III, Albrecht RJ, Kim VB, et al. Computer-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy with the da Vinci surgical robot. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2002;12:155–159CrossRef Chapman WH III, Albrecht RJ, Kim VB, et al. Computer-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy with the da Vinci surgical robot. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2002;12:155–159CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2002;12:225–232CrossRef Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2002;12:225–232CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wykypiel H, Wetscher GJ, Klaus A, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial posterior fundoplication with the DaVinci system: initial experiences and technical aspects. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2003;387:411–416PubMed Wykypiel H, Wetscher GJ, Klaus A, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial posterior fundoplication with the DaVinci system: initial experiences and technical aspects. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2003;387:411–416PubMed
15.
go back to reference Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, et al. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann. Surg. 2004;239:14–21CrossRefPubMed Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, et al. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann. Surg. 2004;239:14–21CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch. Surg. 2003;138:777–784CrossRefPubMed Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch. Surg. 2003;138:777–784CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J. Surg. 2001;25:1467–1477PubMed Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J. Surg. 2001;25:1467–1477PubMed
18.
go back to reference Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G, et al. First experiences with the daVinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2004;25:844–851CrossRefPubMed Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G, et al. First experiences with the daVinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2004;25:844–851CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Greiner A, et al. Early experience with robot-assisted surgery for mediastinal masses. Ann. Thor. Surg. 2004;78:259–265CrossRef Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Greiner A, et al. Early experience with robot-assisted surgery for mediastinal masses. Ann. Thor. Surg. 2004;78:259–265CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Garcia–Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller JH, et al. Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch. Surg. 1998;133:957–961CrossRefPubMed Garcia–Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller JH, et al. Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch. Surg. 1998;133:957–961CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Melvin WC, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, et al. Computer-enhanced vs standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2002;6:11–16CrossRefPubMed Melvin WC, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, et al. Computer-enhanced vs standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2002;6:11–16CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Nio D, Bemelman WA, Boer KT, et al. Efficiency of manual versus robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks. Surg. Endosc. 2002;16:412–415CrossRefPubMed Nio D, Bemelman WA, Boer KT, et al. Efficiency of manual versus robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks. Surg. Endosc. 2002;16:412–415CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Nio D, Bemelman WA, Busch OR, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Surg. Endosc. 2004;18:379–382CrossRefPubMed Nio D, Bemelman WA, Busch OR, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Surg. Endosc. 2004;18:379–382CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, et al. DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes. Surg. 2003;13:848–854CrossRefPubMed Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, et al. DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes. Surg. 2003;13:848–854CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, et al. Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis. Colon Rectum 2003;46:1633–1639CrossRefPubMed Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, et al. Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis. Colon Rectum 2003;46:1633–1639CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Critical Comparison of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Splenectomies
Authors
Johannes Bodner, M.D.
Reinhold Kafka-Ritsch, M.D.
Paolo Lucciarini, M.D.
John H. Fish III, M.D.
Thomas Schmid, M.D.
Publication date
01-08-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 8/2005
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7776-2

Other articles of this Issue 8/2005

World Journal of Surgery 8/2005 Go to the issue

Letters to the Editor

To the Editor

OriginalPaper

Invited Commentary