Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

01-07-2015

Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers

Authors: James Villamere, Alana Gebhart, Stephen Vu, Ninh T. Nguyen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 7/2015

Abstract

Background

Robotic-assisted general and bariatric surgery is gaining popularity among surgeons. The aim of this study was to analyze the utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques for common elective general and bariatric surgical procedures performed at Academic Medical Centers.

Methods

We analyzed data from University HealthSystem Consortium clinical database from October 2010 to February 2014 for all patients who underwent laparoscopic versus robotic techniques for eight common elective general and bariatric surgical procedures: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, gastric band, antireflux surgery, Heller myotomy (HM), cholecystectomy (LC), colectomy, rectal resection (RR). Utilization and outcome measures including demographics, in-hospital mortality, major complications, 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), and costs were compared between techniques.

Results

96,694 laparoscopic and robotic procedures were analyzed. Utilization of the robotic approach was the highest for RR (21.4 %), followed by HM (9.1 %). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or major complications between laparoscopic versus robotic techniques for all procedures. Only two procedures had improved outcome associated with the robotic approach: robotic HM and robotic LC had a shorter LOS compared to the laparoscopic approach (2.8 ± 3.6 vs. 2.3 ± 2.1; respectively, p < 0.05 for HM and 2.9 ± 2.4 vs. 2.3 ± 1.7; respectively, p < 0.05 for LC). Costs were significantly higher (21 %) in the robotic group for all procedures. A subset analysis of patients with minor/moderate severity of illness showed similar results.

Conclusion

This national analysis of academic centers showed a low utilization of robotic-assisted laparoscopic elective general and bariatric surgical procedures with the highest utilization for rectal resection. Compared to conventional laparoscopy, there were no observed clinical benefits associated with the robotic approach, but there was a consistently higher cost.

US Food and Drug Administration, July 2000 510(k) clearances

Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu LC (2012) Use, cost and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 187:1392–1398PubMedCrossRef

Mack MJ (2001) Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JMA 285:568–572CrossRef

Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Shih A, Smith B, Hohmann S (2013) Use of laparoscopy in general surgical operations at academic centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis 9:15–20PubMedCrossRef

American Hospital Association (2008) AHA coding clinic for ICD-9-CM. AHA, Chicago

Anderson JE, Chang DC, Parsons JK, Talamini MA (2012) The first national examination of outcomes and trends in robotic surgery in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 215:107–114PubMedCrossRef

Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129PubMed

Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Omelanczuck P, Elli F, Moser F, Durand L, Caracoche M, Nefa J, Bustos S, Donahue P, Ferraina P (2005) Robotic-assisted Heller myotomy versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg 9:1020–1030PubMedCrossRef

Melvin WS, Dundon JM, Talamin M, Horgan S (2005) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery minimizes esophageal perforation during Heller myotomy. Surgery 138:553–558PubMedCrossRef

10.

Wormer BA, Dacey KT, Williams KB, Bradley JF 3rd, Walkers AL, Augenstein VA, Stefandidis D, Heniford BT (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28:767–776PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bailey JG, Hayden JA, Davis PJ, Liu RY, Haardt D, Ellsmere J (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic Rou-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc 28:414–426PubMedCrossRef

12.

Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM, Perry WB, Glasgow SC (2013) Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum 56:458–466PubMedCrossRef

13.

Shaligram A, Unnirevi J, Simorov A, Kothari VM, Oleynikov D (2012) How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia. Surg Endosc 26:1047–1050PubMedCrossRef

14.

Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790PubMedCrossRef

15.

Myers SR, McGuirl J, Wang J (2013) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic gastric bypass: comparison of short-term outcomes. Obes Surg 23:467–473PubMedCrossRef

16.

Park CW, Lam EC, Walsh TM, Karimoto M, Ma AT, Koo M, Hammill C, Murayama K, Lorenzo CS, Bueno R (2011) Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass performed in a community hospital setting: the future of bariatric surgery? Surg Endosc 25:3312–3321PubMedCrossRef

17.

Romero RJ, Kosanovic R, Rabaza JR, Seetharamaiah R, Donkor C, Gallas M, Gonzalez AM (2013) Robotic sleeve gastrectomy: experience of 134 cases and comparison with a systematic review of the laparoscopic approach. Obes Surg 23:1743–1752PubMedCrossRef

18.

Trastulli S, Farinella E, Cirocchi R, Cavaliere D, Avenia N, Sciannameo F, Gulla N, Noya G, Boselli C (2012) Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 14:134–156CrossRef

19.

Markar SR, Karthikesalingam AP, Hagen ME, Talamini M, Horgan S, Wagner OJ (2010) Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Mod Robot 6:125–131

20.

Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93:553–558PubMedCrossRef

21.

Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care cost: the case of robotic-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704PubMedCrossRef

Title: Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers
Authors: James Villamere
Alana Gebhart
Stephen Vu
Ninh T. Nguyen
Publication date: 01-07-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3886-y

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at Academic Medical Centers

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2015

Non-vascular experimental and clinical applications of advanced bipolar radiofrequency thermofusion technology in the thorax and abdomen: a systematic review

Non-curative endoscopic resection does not always lead to grave outcomes in submucosal invasive early gastric cancer

A prospective video-controlled study of genito-urinary disorders in 35 consecutive laparoscopic TMEs for rectal cancer

Erratum to: Tacks, staples, or suture: method of peritoneal closure in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair effects early quality of life

Effects of laparoscopic instrument and finger on force perception: a first step towards laparoscopic force-skills training

Laparoscopic repair of paraesophageal hernia with anterior gastropexy: a multicenter study