Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2007

01.10.2007

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

verfasst von: A. L. Rawlings, J. H. Woodland, R. K. Vegunta, D. L. Crawford

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 10/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

This study compared the experience and cost of the DaVinci Robotic system and laparoscopy for colon resections.

Methods

For this study, 30 consecutive robotic and 27 consecutive laparoscopic colectomies were divided into right and sigmoid colectomies for analysis. Comparisons included indications for surgery, gender, age, body mass index (BMI), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of operation, length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, operating room (OR) cost, OR personnel cost, OR supply cost, OR time cost, and total hospital cost.

Results

The comparison groups were similar in indications for surgery, gender, age, BMI, EBL, and LOS. The right colectomies included 17 robotic and 15 laparoscopic procedures. An intracorporeal anastomosis was performed in the robotic cases, and an extracorporeal anastomosis was performed in the laparoscopic cases. The total case time was 218.9 min for the robotic and 169.2 min for the laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.002). The total hospital cost was $9,255 for the robotic and $8,073 for the laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.430). The total OR cost was $5,823 for the robotic and $4,339 for the laparoscopic procedures (p < 0.000). The sigmoid colectomies included 13 robotic and 12 laparoscopic procedures. The robotic and laparoscopic cases were managed in similar sequence. The total case time was 225.2 min for the robotic and 199.4 min for the laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.128). The total hospital cost was $12,335 for the robotic and $10,697 for the laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.735). The total OR cost was $6,059 for the robotic and $4,974 for the laparoscopic procedures (p = 0.068). The complications in the robotic groups were more numerous, but were not attributable to equipment.

Conclusions

The comparison groups were similar. The robotic cases were significantly longer for right colectomies because of the intracorporeal anastomosis instead of the extracorporeal anastomosis performed in the laparoscopy cases. Every cost category was higher for the robotic cases. The right colectomies showed significant increases in total OR cost, OR personnel cost, OR supply cost, and OR time cost. The sigmoid colectomies had significant increases in OR personnel cost and OR supply cost. The total hospital cost was higher for the robotic groups, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Anvari M, Birch D, Bamehriz F, Gryfe R, Chapman T (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14: 311–315PubMedCrossRef Anvari M, Birch D, Bamehriz F, Gryfe R, Chapman T (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14: 311–315PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ballantyne G, Moll F (2003) The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83: 1293–1304PubMedCrossRef Ballantyne G, Moll F (2003) The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83: 1293–1304PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Braumann C, Jacobi C, Menenakos C, Borchert U, Rueckert J, Mueller J (2005) Computer–assisted laparoscopic colon resection with the DaVinci system: our first experiences. Dis Colon Rectum 48: 1820–1827PubMedCrossRef Braumann C, Jacobi C, Menenakos C, Borchert U, Rueckert J, Mueller J (2005) Computer–assisted laparoscopic colon resection with the DaVinci system: our first experiences. Dis Colon Rectum 48: 1820–1827PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Cadiere G, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25: 1467–1477PubMed Cadiere G, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25: 1467–1477PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Camarillo D, Krummel T, Salisbury J (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188: 2S–15SPubMedCrossRef Camarillo D, Krummel T, Salisbury J (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188: 2S–15SPubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F, Pirozzi F, Caiazzo P (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 19: 117–119PubMedCrossRef Corcione F, Esposito C, Cuccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F, Pirozzi F, Caiazzo P (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 19: 117–119PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47: 2162–2168PubMedCrossRef D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47: 2162–2168PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Delaney C, Lynch A, Senagore A, Fazio V (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46: 1633–1639PubMedCrossRef Delaney C, Lynch A, Senagore A, Fazio V (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 46: 1633–1639PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hazey J, Melvin W (2004) Robot-assisted general surgery. Semin Lap Surg 11: 107–112 Hazey J, Melvin W (2004) Robot-assisted general surgery. Semin Lap Surg 11: 107–112
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11: 415–419CrossRef Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11: 415–419CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Melvin W, Needleman J, Krause K, Schneider C, Wolf R, Michler R, Ellison E (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery: initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16: 1790–1792PubMedCrossRef Melvin W, Needleman J, Krause K, Schneider C, Wolf R, Michler R, Ellison E (2002) Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery: initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 16: 1790–1792PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Perez A, Zinner M, Ashley S, Brooks D, Whang E (2003) What is the value of telerobotic technology in gastrointestinal surgery? Surg Endosc 17: 811–813PubMedCrossRef Perez A, Zinner M, Ashley S, Brooks D, Whang E (2003) What is the value of telerobotic technology in gastrointestinal surgery? Surg Endosc 17: 811–813PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Rawlings A, Woodland J, Crawford D (2006) Telerobotic surgery for right and sigmoid colectomies: 30 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 20: 1713–1718PubMedCrossRef Rawlings A, Woodland J, Crawford D (2006) Telerobotic surgery for right and sigmoid colectomies: 30 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 20: 1713–1718PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparendosc Adv Surg Tech 12: 225–232CrossRef Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparendosc Adv Surg Tech 12: 225–232CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Talamini M, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin W (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17: 1521–1524PubMedCrossRef Talamini M, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin W (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17: 1521–1524PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Weber P, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne G (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45: 1689–1696PubMedCrossRef Weber P, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne G (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45: 1689–1696PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy
verfasst von
A. L. Rawlings
J. H. Woodland
R. K. Vegunta
D. L. Crawford
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2007
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 10/2007
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9231-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2007

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2007 Zur Ausgabe

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.