Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Pediatric Surgery International 12/2015

01-12-2015 | Review Article

Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss?

Authors: Thomas P. Cundy, Hani J. Marcus, Archie Hughes-Hallett, Sanjeev Khurana, Ara Darzi

Published in: Pediatric Surgery International | Issue 12/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The role of robot-assisted surgery in children remains controversial. This article aims to distil this debate into an evidence informed decision-making taxonomy; to adopt this technology (1) now, (2) later, or (3) not at all. Robot-assistance is safe, feasible and effective in selected cases as an adjunctive tool to enhance capabilities of minimally invasive surgery, as it is known today. At present, expectations of rigid multi-arm robotic systems to deliver higher quality care are over-estimated and poorly substantiated by evidence. Such systems are associated with high costs. Further comparative effectiveness evidence is needed to define the case-mix for which robot-assistance might be indicated. It seems unlikely that we should expect compelling patient benefits when it is only the mode of minimally invasive surgery that differs. Only large higher-volume institutions that share the robot amongst multiple specialty groups are likely to be able to sustain higher associated costs with today’s technology. Nevertheless, there is great potential for next-generation surgical robotics to enable better ways to treat childhood surgical diseases through less invasive techniques that are not possible today. This will demand customized technology for selected patient populations or procedures. Several prototype robots exclusively designed for pediatric use are already under development. Financial affordability must be a high priority to ensure clinical accessibility.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J et al (2013) The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 48:858–865CrossRefPubMed Cundy TP, Shetty K, Clark J et al (2013) The first decade of robotic surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 48:858–865CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81:1336–1341CrossRefPubMed Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81:1336–1341CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Sukumar S, Roghmann F, Sood A et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28:592–598CrossRefPubMed Sukumar S, Roghmann F, Sood A et al (2014) Correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: national trends and comparative effectiveness in operative outcomes. J Endourol 28:592–598CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191:1090–1095PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C et al (2014) National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol 191:1090–1095PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. 5th edn, New York Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. 5th edn, New York
6.
go back to reference Cundy TP, Harling L, Marcus HJ et al (2014) Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children. J Pediatr Surg 49:646–652CrossRefPubMed Cundy TP, Harling L, Marcus HJ et al (2014) Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication in children. J Pediatr Surg 49:646–652CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114:582–594CrossRefPubMed Cundy TP, Harling L, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) Meta analysis of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. BJU Int 114:582–594CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Meehan JJ, Sandler A (2008) Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 22:177–1782CrossRefPubMed Meehan JJ, Sandler A (2008) Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 22:177–1782CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Esposito C, El Ghoneimi A, Yamataka A et al (2013) Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in pediatric laparoscopic surgery. A multicenter survey. J Pediatr Surg 48:1750–1756CrossRefPubMed Esposito C, El Ghoneimi A, Yamataka A et al (2013) Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in pediatric laparoscopic surgery. A multicenter survey. J Pediatr Surg 48:1750–1756CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K et al (2013) Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot 9:142–147CrossRefPubMed Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K et al (2013) Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot 9:142–147CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424CrossRefPubMed Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J et al (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4428-y Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J et al (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-015-4428-y
13.
go back to reference Krummel TM, Gertner M, Makower J et al (2006) Inventing our future: training the next generation of surgeon innovators. Semin Pediatr Surg 15:309–318CrossRefPubMed Krummel TM, Gertner M, Makower J et al (2006) Inventing our future: training the next generation of surgeon innovators. Semin Pediatr Surg 15:309–318CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Heemskerk J, Bouvy ND, Baeten CG (2014) The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398CrossRefPubMed Heemskerk J, Bouvy ND, Baeten CG (2014) The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722CrossRefPubMed Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Basto M, Sathianathan N, Marvelde LT et al (2015) A patterns of care and health economic analysis of robotic radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.13317 Basto M, Sathianathan N, Marvelde LT et al (2015) A patterns of care and health economic analysis of robotic radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int. doi:10.​1111/​bju.​13317
18.
19.
go back to reference Buchs NC, Volonte F, Pugin F et al (2013) Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation. Surg Endosc 27:692–693CrossRefPubMed Buchs NC, Volonte F, Pugin F et al (2013) Three-dimensional laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation. Surg Endosc 27:692–693CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kunert W, Storz P, Kirschniak A (2013) For 3D laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation: how to get maximum benefit from 3D vision. Surg Endosc 27:696–699CrossRefPubMed Kunert W, Storz P, Kirschniak A (2013) For 3D laparoscopy: a step toward advanced surgical navigation: how to get maximum benefit from 3D vision. Surg Endosc 27:696–699CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W et al (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 6:1454–1460CrossRef Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W et al (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 6:1454–1460CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Frede T, Hammady A, Klein J et al (2007) The radius surgical system—a new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology? Eur Urol 51:1015–1022CrossRefPubMed Frede T, Hammady A, Klein J et al (2007) The radius surgical system—a new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology? Eur Urol 51:1015–1022CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Lukish J, Rasmussen S, Garrett D et al (2013) Utilization of a novel unidirectional knotless suture during minimal access procedures in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 48:1445–1449CrossRefPubMed Lukish J, Rasmussen S, Garrett D et al (2013) Utilization of a novel unidirectional knotless suture during minimal access procedures in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 48:1445–1449CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Peters CA (2009) Pediatric robotic-assisted surgery: too early an assessment? Pediatrics 124:1680–1681CrossRefPubMed Peters CA (2009) Pediatric robotic-assisted surgery: too early an assessment? Pediatrics 124:1680–1681CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Meininger D, Byhahn C, Mierdl S et al (2005) Hemodynamic and respiratory effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication in children. World J Surg 29:615–619CrossRefPubMed Meininger D, Byhahn C, Mierdl S et al (2005) Hemodynamic and respiratory effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication in children. World J Surg 29:615–619CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Cundy TP, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) International attitudes of early adopters to current and future robotic technologies in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 49:1522–1526CrossRefPubMed Cundy TP, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A et al (2014) International attitudes of early adopters to current and future robotic technologies in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 49:1522–1526CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA et al (2001) Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5:1–79CrossRefPubMed Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA et al (2001) Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 5:1–79CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Vitiello V, Lee SL, Cundy TP et al (2013) Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 6:111–126CrossRefPubMed Vitiello V, Lee SL, Cundy TP et al (2013) Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 6:111–126CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R et al (2014) A novel robotic system for single-port urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 66:1033–1043CrossRefPubMed Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R et al (2014) A novel robotic system for single-port urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 66:1033–1043CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Looi T, Yeung B, Umasthan M et al (2013) KidsArm—an image-guided pediatric anastomosis robot. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 4105–4110 Looi T, Yeung B, Umasthan M et al (2013) KidsArm—an image-guided pediatric anastomosis robot. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 4105–4110
31.
go back to reference Leonard S, Wu KL, Kim Y et al (2014) Smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR): a vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1305–1317CrossRefPubMed Leonard S, Wu KL, Kim Y et al (2014) Smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR): a vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1305–1317CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Liu Q, Kobayashi Y, Zhang B et al (2014) Development of a smart surgical robot with bended forceps for infant congenital esophageal atresia surgery. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2430–2435 Liu Q, Kobayashi Y, Zhang B et al (2014) Development of a smart surgical robot with bended forceps for infant congenital esophageal atresia surgery. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2430–2435
33.
go back to reference Damian D, Arabagi S, Fabozzo A et al (2014) Robotic implant to apply tissue traction forces in the treatment of esophageal atresia. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 786–792 Damian D, Arabagi S, Fabozzo A et al (2014) Robotic implant to apply tissue traction forces in the treatment of esophageal atresia. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 786–792
34.
go back to reference Bergeles C, Yang GZ (2014) From passive tool holders to microsurgeons: safer, smaller, smarter surgical robots. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1565–1576CrossRefPubMed Bergeles C, Yang GZ (2014) From passive tool holders to microsurgeons: safer, smaller, smarter surgical robots. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:1565–1576CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss?
Authors
Thomas P. Cundy
Hani J. Marcus
Archie Hughes-Hallett
Sanjeev Khurana
Ara Darzi
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Pediatric Surgery International / Issue 12/2015
Print ISSN: 0179-0358
Electronic ISSN: 1437-9813
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-015-3800-2

Other articles of this Issue 12/2015

Pediatric Surgery International 12/2015 Go to the issue