Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 9/2018

01-09-2018 | Controversies in Colorectal Surgery

Use of robotic technology: a survey of practice patterns of the ASCRS Young Surgeons Committee

Authors: D. S. Keller, K. Zaghiyan, J. S. Mizell

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 9/2018

Login to get access

Excerpt

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has proven clinical, functional, and financial benefits compared to open surgery, but remains underutilized in the United States. Laparoscopic training is mandatory in colorectal surgery (CRS) residency [1], with a minimum case requirement, yet young surgeons may not continue to use laparoscopy after training [2, 3]. Conversely, robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACRS) training is not mandatory, with no case requirement. Regardless of this and numerous reports of equivocal outcomes with higher costs, RACRS utilization continues to grow, while laparoscopic rates remain stagnant [47]. Little study to date reports the use of RACRS or platform preferences for surgeons new to practice [8]. With this need, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) Young Surgeons’ Committee (YSC) sought to assess the trends in training, minimally invasive surgery preferences, perceived obstacles, and opinion on future direction for RACRS from young colorectal surgeons and an anonymous 25-item online questionnaire was distributed to all current YSC members1; 78.3% (25/32) completed the survey in its entirety. …
Footnotes
1
YSC members were assumed representative of the young colorectal surgeon population.
 
Literature
2.
go back to reference Steele SR, Stein SL, Bordeianou LG, Johnson E, Herzig DO, Champagne BJ (2012) The impact of practice environment on laparoscopic colectomy utilization following colorectal residency: a survey of the ASCRS Young Surgeons. Colorectal Dis 14:374–381CrossRef Steele SR, Stein SL, Bordeianou LG, Johnson E, Herzig DO, Champagne BJ (2012) The impact of practice environment on laparoscopic colectomy utilization following colorectal residency: a survey of the ASCRS Young Surgeons. Colorectal Dis 14:374–381CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Stein S, Stulberg J, Champagne B (2012) Learning laparoscopic colectomy during colorectal residency: what does it take and how are we doing? Surg Endosc 26:488–492CrossRef Stein S, Stulberg J, Champagne B (2012) Learning laparoscopic colectomy during colorectal residency: what does it take and how are we doing? Surg Endosc 26:488–492CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27:2253–2257CrossRef Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M (2013) Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc 27:2253–2257CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD et al (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790CrossRef Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD et al (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC et al (2017) Trends and outcomes of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012—an analysis using national inpatient database. Sci Rep 7:2006CrossRef Lee MG, Chiu CC, Wang CC et al (2017) Trends and outcomes of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2012—an analysis using national inpatient database. Sci Rep 7:2006CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580CrossRef Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Pendlimari R, Holubar SD, Dozois EJ, Larson DW, Pemberton JH, Cima RR (2012) Technical proficiency in hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery: determining how many cases are required to achieve mastery. Arch Surg 147:317–322CrossRef Pendlimari R, Holubar SD, Dozois EJ, Larson DW, Pemberton JH, Cima RR (2012) Technical proficiency in hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery: determining how many cases are required to achieve mastery. Arch Surg 147:317–322CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Disbrow DE, Pannell SM, Shanker BA et al (2018) The effect of formal robotic residency training on the adoption of minimally invasive surgery by young colorectal surgeons. J Surg Educ 75:767–778CrossRef Disbrow DE, Pannell SM, Shanker BA et al (2018) The effect of formal robotic residency training on the adoption of minimally invasive surgery by young colorectal surgeons. J Surg Educ 75:767–778CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Use of robotic technology: a survey of practice patterns of the ASCRS Young Surgeons Committee
Authors
D. S. Keller
K. Zaghiyan
J. S. Mizell
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1862-6

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Techniques in Coloproctology 9/2018 Go to the issue