SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

DaVinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

by

SAGES daVinci Safety and Effectiveness Subcommittee

Chair: Shawn Tsuda, MD
TAVAC Committee Chair: Dmitry Oleynikov, MD

Jon Gould, MD
Dan Azagury, MD
Bryan Sandler, MD
Matthew Hutter, MD
Sharona Ross, MD
Eric Haas, MD
Fred Brody, MD
Richard Satava, MD

Technology Overview

The da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures.

The da Vinci® Surgical System is not technically a robot but is a computer-assisted telemanipulator. A robotic device is a “powered, computer-controlled manipulator with artificial sensing that can be reprogrammed to move and position tools to carry out a wide range of surgical tasks.” [1] Conversely, computer-assisted devices are not true robots because they lack independent motions or preprogrammed actions. The term telemanipulator, or telesurgery, implies that there is a distance interposed between the surgeon and the patient.

When using the da Vinci® Surgical System, the surgeon sits at a console remote from the patient and manipulates controls for the surgical instruments. The computer enhances the interaction between the surgeon and the bedside robotic device by eliminating tremor and scaling all motions to a selected degree. This makes fine and precise movements of the surgical instruments possible. In addition, the robotic instruments are multi-articulated and capable of a full range of motion enabling complex maneuvers that would be difficult with standard laparoscopic instruments. High-definition, three-dimensional visualization provides image detail and depth. A robotic arm manipulates the camera, providing a steady view that is directed by the operating surgeon. The surgeon’s hand and instrument tip movements are synchronous.

The da Vinci® Surgical System consists of the control console, vision system cart, and the patient-side cart. The surgeon sits at the control console, separated from the operative table but typically in the same room. This console is designed to provide the surgeon with an ergonomically comfortable position in which he or she can manipulate the “masters,” or controls. The vision system cart includes the processor, video monitor, light source, and other equipment related to the endoscopic camera. The cart receives input from the camera and displays the resulting live video on the video monitor and at the surgeon console. The patient-side cart provides two or three robotic arms (depending on the version and options) and one camera-manipulating arm that execute the surgeon’s commands. There are currently more than 50 different detachable instruments (needle drivers, graspers, etc.) that can be attached to the manipulator arms and exchanged as needed during a procedure. Additional options include a dual console that enables surgeons to work in tandem, Firefly™ imaging (near-infrared imaging of vasculature achieved by tracking a fluorescent dye), and single-port surgery capability (recently cleared by the FDA for laparoscopic cholecystectomy).

Technology Significance

The advantages of minimally invasive surgery when compared to an open approach have been well documented in many surgical specialties and for many different procedures [2-4]. These differences include decreased duration of hospital stay, less pain, fewer wound infections and hernias, quicker return of bowel function, and less time to resume normal activities. In certain disciplines, most notably urology and gynecology (prostatectomy made up 31% and hysterectomy 41% of all daVinci® procedures in 2011), robotic surgical systems have enabled increased adoption of minimally invasive techniques by surgeons and a move away from open surgery. When compared to open prostatectomy, minimally invasive robotic prostatectomy has been demonstrated to be associated with better urinary continence and erectile function recovery, lower rates of positive surgical margins, and better perioperative outcomes [5-7]. However, when an established laparoscopic approach to an operation exists, the benefits of robotic surgery when compared to laparoscopy have not been demonstrated to be superior [8,9].

The daVinci® Surgical System has evolved since the original version was released in 2000 at the time of FDA approval. In 2006, the S version was released, followed by the Si in 2009 and the Si-e in 2010 (Si-e is a more basic version of the Si with three robotic arms rather than four). On April 1, 2014, the newest Intuitive system, the da Vinci® Xi, was cleared by the FDA (Xi has an overhead arm and thinner arms which allow greater range of motion and placement of any instrument or the camera thru any port). According to the 2012 Intuitive Surgical Annual Report, there were 2585 da Vinci® Surgical Systems installed worldwide, including 1878 in the U.S., 416 in Europe, and 291 in the rest of the world [10]. In 2013, approximately 523,000 surgical procedures were performed with the da Vinci® Surgical System, up 16% compared to approximately 450,000 procedures performed in 2012. The growth in overall 2013-procedure volume was driven by the growth in U.S. general surgery procedures, U.S. gynecologic procedures, and urology procedures outside of the USA [11].

The 2013 list price of a da Vinci® Si system (without dual console, single site platform, Firefly™, or simulator) was $1.75 million. The annual service fee is approximately $150,000 and the estimated added consumable cost per procedure is $1600 compared to open surgery.[1] Insurance companies generally provide coverage and reimbursement for robotic procedures at the same rate as conventional laparoscopic surgery. In order to recoup the added expense of robotic surgery, cost savings through length of stay reductions and decreased complications must theoretically be coupled with high caseloads. The cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery has not yet been shown.

Clinical Evidence Summary

Data has been published for multiple general and gastrointestinal surgeries with robotic surgery, including cholecystectomy, esophagectomy, fundoplication, Heller myotomy, gastrectomy, splenectomy, pancreatectomy, liver resection, colectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Foregut Surgery

Use of the da Vinci® Surgical System in operations involving the foregut comprises some of the largest data sets for robotic gastrointestinal surgery, mainly in Nissen fundoplication and Heller myotomy [12-15].

A robotic assisted laparoscopic Heller myotomy (RALHM) was first reported in 2001 followed by a small case series [16-18]. An academic robotic surgery group, comprising surgeons from Ohio State University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, prospectively collected data on 104 robotic Heller myotomies without any perforations. Both laparoscopic and robotic techniques were safe and associated with low occurrence of complications. However, no clear benefit was seen in the robotic group. Some studies have demonstrated a lower incidence of esophageal perforation with the use of robotic assistance than reported for conventional laparoscopic techniques. Melvin et al. demonstrated the feasibility of robotic assistance for 104 patients, with a mean operative time of 140 min, no esophageal perforations, and only one conversion to an open procedure [29]. In the series by Galvani et al., 54 patients underwent RALHM with no esophageal perforations, minimal blood loss, and an average hospital stay of 1.5 days [30]. The average operative time was 162 min, and 93% of the patients had no dysphagia during an average follow-up period of 17 months. Iqbal et al. demonstrated a 7.8% esophageal perforation rate with the standard laparoscopic technique and no esophageal perforations in the 19 patients undergoing RALHM [31]. Horgan et al. reported an esophageal perforation rate of 16% in their LHM group compared with 0% for the RALHM patients [32]. Similar results regarding the robotic telesurgical approach were obtained in three subsequent published series comparing robotic Heller myotomy with laparoscopic Heller myotomy [20,21].

Melvin et al. reported a comparison case series of gastroesophageal fundoplication performed by standard laparoscopy or with robotic telesurgical assistance [19]. Several randomized studies have examined the utility of robotic Nissen fundoplication for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) [22-23]. These studies compared robotic Nissen fundoplication (RF) to laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Both studies quoted increased operative times for patients within the robotic groups.

The short-term outcomes of robotic paraesophageal hernia repair (RPEH) are not well reported in the literature [24,25]. Several studies had reported that RPEH is not associated with statistically significant increases in operative times when compared with RF [26]. It has been suggested that technically superior hiatal repairs can be achieved with RPEH, although in long-term follow-up comparisons to a laparoscopic PEH cohort this has not been shown [27,28].

Other data has looked at operative time and cost comparing robotic fundoplication to laparoscopic fundoplication. Several randomized trials were conducted comparing robotic and laparoscopic fundoplication, which demonstrated short-term outcomes were similar in both groups, with increased hospital cost seen in the robotic group [33-35]. Most recently, Owen et al. with Oleynikov at the University of Nebraska Medical Center analyzed 12,079 patients from the University Health System Consortium and found for Nissen fundoplication similar outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic approaches except for increased cost (US$10,644 +/-6041 vs. US$$12,766 +/-13,982, p < 0.05) [51].

Robotics in the management of gastric cancer has been employed, first reported by Giulianotti in 2003 [36]. There are comparison series between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy [37-46]. Some of the results are: the overall conversion rate is between 0–10%, mean operating time ranges from 293.8 to 656 min, and there is a noticeable decrease in time for robotic system set up as registered over 2 years. Estimated mean blood loss ranged from 65 to 300 ml. Specific morbidity ranges from 9 to 30% in the literature. Mortality varies between 0 and 9% [47-49]. There is additional data looking specifically at oncologic outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Kim et al. provided comparison-effectiveness information regarding robotic surgery versus laparoscopic or open gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer [50]. The authors compared the results of robotic gastrectomy using the da Vinci® Surgical System with those for 11 laparoscopic and 12 open gastrectomies. The total number of lymph nodes retrieved was used as a quality control measure in gastric, colorectal, and other cancers and did not differ significantly among the groups. Robotic surgery was associated with significantly less blood loss and a shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Overall studies suggest that robotic foregut surgery is safe; however, no improvement in outcomes has been shown and costs are increased.

Bariatric Surgery

The use of robotic technology has been increasingly reported in bariatric surgery, including five systematic reviews [52-56]. The only procedure studied in any volume is the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A totally robotic laparoscopic RYGBP procedure using the da Vinci® surgical system has been described as a safe and effective alternative to open or laparoscopic techniques.

The published reviews report non-inferiority of the robotic approach when compared to standard laparoscopy. However, they fail to demonstrate superiority, pointing to the lack of high quality data. A single randomized trial exists showing equivalent outcomes [57]. Other large trials include case control studies with up to 400 patients per group or case series (one including over 1000 robotic RYGB) [58-69]: These studies all confirm non-inferiority of the robotic approach, and most demonstrate some benefit when compared to laparoscopy in reduction of gastro-jejunal (GJ) leak rates, reduced strictures rates, or reduced length of stay. Data also consistently shows longer operative times in the robotic groups. Reported rates of complications after stapling at the GJ are 1.1–6.0% leak rate, 2.9–27.1% stricture rate, and 1.6% rate of intraluminal bleeding [70-72].

Robotic approaches can facilitate hand-sewn GJ creation that offers several advantages to the bariatric surgeon compared to laparoscopy. The most important advantage is that the added degrees of freedom of the needle driver allow for precise, ambidextrous forehand and backhand suture placement [73]. The angles encountered in the creation of the laparoscopic GJ are sometimes awkward and can make the anastomosis technique challenging. With robotic surgery, this additional challenge is potentially minimized. A completely handsewn robotic gastrojejunal anastomosis appears to be feasible and although it may even be less technically challenging then a pure laparoscopic hand sutured approach, there is no data. However, since the standard is a stapled anastomosis there appears to be no difference in either safety or outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery

The use of the daVinci® Surgical System to perform liver resection has been described by several authors in a variety of case series for both benign and malignant hepatic resections [74-85]. The challenge in fully evaluating this technology for this application is that no randomized, controlled data exist to compare robotic-assistance with conventional laparoscopy for hepatic resections.

A systematic review of the literature reports 19 series of robotic-assisted liver resection that included 236 robotic procedures in 219 patients [86]. Both benign and malignant lesion resection were included in the series with tumor size of up to 6.4cm. Robotic-assisted wedge resection or segmentectomy was the most commonly performed procedure (37.7%), followed by right hepatectomy (21.6%), left lateral segmentectomy (20.8%), left hepatectomy (13.1%), and bisegmentectomy (5.1%). Also included in the series were 2 right trisegmentectomies (0.8%), an extended right hepatectomy (0.4%), and a right live donor hepatectomy (0.4%). Liver parenchymal transection was performed using robotic ultrasonic dissection or robotic bipolar electrosurgery after tissue crushing, while vessel transection was performed with clip application, ligature, or with running suture. Conversion to open surgery was performed in 10 cases (4.6%), most commonly for unclear margins or bleeding. No mortality was reported. Morbidity was cited in 20.3% of cases (48/236), the most common being intra-abdominal bile collection/abscess in 6.6% of procedures. Operative duration ranged from 200 to 507 minutes.

A few non-randomized, comparative cohort studies exist, comparing robotic liver resection with laparoscopic and open hepatic surgery [87,88].  A comparative study showed no time difference between robotic and conventional laparoscopic liver resection, while others suggested longer robotic surgical times when compared with laparoscopic or open techniques (253 min vs. 199 min respectively). Estimated blood loss was not significantly different from that of laparoscopic liver resection although direct comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy showed that the robotic approach allowed for increased percentage of hepatectomies to be completed in a purely minimally invasive fashion (81% vs. 7.1%) [88]. Similar disease-free survival was seen when robotic resection of mixed malignancies were compared with laparoscopic resection [74,76,82]. With a lack of true randomized, controlled data comparing robotic hepatectomy with laparoscopic or open hepatectomy, no significant conclusions can be made comparing the procedures. Robotic hepatectomy is feasible, as demonstrated in several series, but true comparisons, especially to help evaluate oncologic and other patient outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and morbidity and mortality differences cannot be determined with existing data.

Similar to robotic-assisted hepatic procedures, robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery has been described in several case series for both benign and malignant disease [89-90]. Again, no randomized, controlled trials exist comparing robotic pancreatic surgical procedures with laparoscopic or open surgical procedures, but several series have demonstrated safe outcomes in select patients. Pancreatic resections described using robotic assistance include: pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatic enucleation, total pancreatectomy, Appleby resection, and Frey procedure. No direct comparison studies look at open versus laparoscopic versus robotic pancreatectomy in a randomized, controlled, prospective fashion so drawing definitive conclusions about the superiority of a robotic approach in pancreatectomy is not possible.

Multi-port cholecystectomy has been performed with robotic assistance, and is commonly used as a procedure for surgeons to gain comfort with the robotic platform early in their learning curve. There is insufficient data, however, to support robotic cholecystectomy outside of training purposes.

Colorectal Surgery

Adaptation of the da Vinci® system for colorectal procedures was first reported by Weber et al. in 2002 [91]. They found that the robot overcame several of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopy, although a much longer operative time was required. Delaney et al. evaluated perioperative outcomes for six matched robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal procedures in 2003 [92]. Their robotic procedures were associated with an increased operative time; however, incision length, blood loss, and length of hospitalization were similar between the groups. Several other authors have also reported their early assessment of da Vinci® robotic colorectal surgery [93-98]. Although some variability exists, the early phases of robotic literature generally revealed similar conclusions showing comparable short-term results compared with laparoscopy with lower blood loss, and increased length of surgery and cost [99, 100].

True benefits of robotic colorectal surgery have not been shown. The potential benefits of robotic colorectal surgery may be seen in cases involving rectal and pelvic dissection, but proven benefits have not been demonstrated [101]. There is, however, literature examining the robotic approach for colorectal cases involving rectal and pelvic anatomy [102]. Some have shown positive outcomes for a quality total mesorectal excision (TME) and cylindrical excision for low rectal cancers [103-105]. It has also been suggested that in the obese and male gender, robotic surgery is associated with decreased blood loss and lower rates of conversion. Nearly all studies have shown however, that the robotic platform results in prolonged operative times as well as higher costs compared with laparoscopy. Some surgeons advocate for robotic right colectomy; however, unlike its role in pelvic anatomy, no significant advantages over existing minimally invasive techniques in regard to technical considerations and outcomes have been shown [106,107]. In light of the increased resources required for robotic surgery, its role in non-rectosigmoid procedures is limited at this time.

At present, the greatest utilization for continued advancements with robotic colorectal surgery is centered on techniques and outcomes for total mesorectal excision (TME) [108,109]. Although 45% of colectomies are performed laparoscopically in the USA, less than 10% of rectal resections are performed using a minimally invasive approach. Robotic surgery has been touted as an enabling technology for rectal resections, and it is estimated that nearly half of minimally invasive rectal cases are performed robotically [109]. These procedures involve pelvic anatomy in which critical structures are located in a confined and restricted anatomical location, which is even more pronounced in the male or obese patient. Numerous authors contend that the 3D visualization and wristed instruments afford advantages for mesorectal excision and nerve-sparing over conventional laparoscopic technique [110-112]. The published literature is yet to validate such benefits, with some studies showing advantages and others demonstrating non-inferiority for robotic rectal resection. However, the literature does consistently reveal similar short-term outcomes with longer operative times and higher costs [113,114]. Some early studies have shown trends toward better sexual or bladder function; nevertheless, this has not reached significance and has yet to be proven [115-116]. Currently, randomized control trials are looking to answer these and other questions regarding the widespread role of robotic surgery for rectal cancer [117].

Procedures for benign diseases such as rectal prolapse and complicated diverticulitis have been reported [118-121]. No clear advantage has been shown over laparoscopy. Overall, these studies have shown similar short-term outcomes with lower blood loss at the expense of longer operative times and higher costs similar to the TME data.

Rectal surgery, either by laparoscopy or utilizing the robotic platform, is still considered more technically challenging than open colon resection. As such, some would suggest only employing robotics for the treatment of rectal pathology once the early phase of the learning curve is achieved. There are few studies that have evaluated the learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery. Spinoglio et al. aimed to assess surgical and oncological advantages of robotic colorectal surgery for cancer in 2010 [122]. They noted that operative time decreased as their experience increased (419 minutes in the first 20 cases vs. 346 minutes in the last 30 cases; P = 0.036). In 2011, Bokhari et al. utilized a cumulative sum (CUSUM) methodology to create a three-phase learning curve from a series of 50 consecutive robotic rectal cases [123]. They concluded that the learning phase for robotic rectal surgery was achieved after 15 to 25 cases. Similar observations were noted by Jiménez-Rodríguez et al. and Sng et al. [124,125]. While there is no consensus on the exact number of cases required to overcome the learning curve, it is acknowledged that competency with laparoscopic colectomy is recommended prior to operating the robotic system for rectal procedures [126].

At present, no significant benefits have been realized with regard to operative time or patient-related outcomes following robotic colorectal surgery. Without significant reductions in operative time or length of stay, meaningful cost reductions cannot be realized. Utilization of this platform should be rationalized on a case-by-case basis, especially for cases with pelvic anatomy or unfavorable patient characteristics such as obesity or low rectal tumors. Efforts can be made toward developing improved instrumentation as well as optimizing the approach and lowering or times and costs [127,128]. Until such time, the utilization of the robotic platform for rectal pathology should be reserved for cases and pathologies in which the surgeon feels it affords true benefits that outweigh the increased resources of this approach.

Single-port robotic colorectal surgery has been performed but has not been evaluated outside of small series and initial experiences [129-131]. Use of the da Vinci® platform has also been extended for use in transanal surgery, with several authors demonstrating safety and feasibility in combination with transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) [132-134]. This is early data and further studies will need to be performed to know if there is any benefit to this approach.

Single-Incision Robotic Cholecystectomy

With the introduction of the single-incision Da Vinci® robotic platform, several institutions have described their experience with this technology for robotic cholecystectomy [135-145]. It appears that, with adequate experience, the use of this technology for single-incision robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is safe and feasible. In addition to the use of a novel robotic platform, this technology also has the capability of fluorescent imaging using an integrated near infrared camera following indocyanine green (ICG) administration for real-time visualization of biliary anatomy. This has been advocated by some groups to help facilitate bile duct visualization during the procedure in efforts to reduce biliary injury [146]. The real-time visualization of a patient’s biliary anatomy requires a simple push of a button to swap between the white-light and the near infrared camera filter feature built into the most recent robotic system.

While convenient for deciphering obscure anatomy quickly, the true reliability of this single-incision robotic surgery approach awaits further clinical trials. Similar to hepatic and pancreatic surgery, no randomized, controlled trials exist comparing robotic single-incision cholecystectomy with either traditional 4-trocar laparoscopic cholecystectomy or conventional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and any advantages that the robotic system offers must await this analysis before definitive conclusions can be made. There are also ample data that the costs are higher with the robotic approach. Robotic cholecystectomy cannot, therefore, be recommended currently as a modality to be used for routine cholecystectomy.

Ongoing Trials

A review of clinicaltrials.gov (accessed 2/19/2014) was performed to identify current clinical studies regarding robotic surgery:

  • Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Rectal Cancer: This study at the University of California, Irvine aims to compare two different surgical procedures for the treatment of Rectal Cancer: Laparoscopic Surgery and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery. The ROLARR study is for participants with cancer of the rectum for whom a laparoscopic operation has been recommended by their surgeon.
  • Efficacy Study of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: This study from the National Cancer Center, Korea aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of robotic surgery in mid or low rectal cancer.
  • Robotic Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy – Outcome and Cost Analyses of a Case-Matched Control Study: This study from the University of Zurich, is a case matched study on 50 consecutive patients undergoing robotic assisted cholecystectomy. These patients are matched 1:1 to 50 patients with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, according to age, gender, ASA score, histology and surgical experience.
  • A Trial to Assess Robot-assisted Surgery and Laparoscopy-assisted Surgery in Patients With Mid or Low Rectal Cancer: This study from Kyungpook National University will assess the safety and benefit of robotic resection compared with conventional laparoscopy-assisted resection for curative treatment of patients with cancer of the mid or low rectum.
  • Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Robot Surgery for Right-side Colon Cancer: Short-term Outcome of a Randomized Clinical Trial: This study from Kyungpook National University is a randomized controlled trial designed to determine the safety and efficacy of robotic right hemicolectomy in comparison with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.
  • Clinical and Health Economic Impact of Robot-assisted Surgery vs Conventional Laparoscopy : the Case of Gastric Bypass: This study from IHU Strasbourg aims to gather clinical and economic evidence on the use of robotics for bariatric surgery (gastric bypass). This monocentric, randomized, single blind, controlled study will evaluate post-operative pain, quality of life and appetite, and post-operative complication incidence. It will also provide information on direct and indirect costs of surgery.
  • Laparoscopic “da VINCI®” Robot Assisted Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair: This study from Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris aims to prove the superiority of the robotic assistance in laparoscopic repair of abdominal wall hernias. In this monocentric randomized controlled trial, the use of the DA VINCI® robot might reduce the post-operative pain of the patient resulting in a 40% reduction of morphine consumption.
  • Fluorescence Versus Intraoperative Cholangiography in the Visualization of Biliary Tree Anatomy: This study from IHU Strasbourg looks at different techniques that have been proposed to prevent bile duct injury.
  • Cosmesis, Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life After da Vinci® Single Site and Multiport Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: This study by Intuitive Surgical is a prospective, randomized , multicenter study comparing cholecystectomy performed with da Vinci® Single Site Instruments™ to multi-port (four ports) laparoscopy.
  • The Clinical Study of Making the Evidence With Application of Da Vinci® Robot-Assisted Low Anterior Resection in Rectal Cancer: This study from Yonsei University investigates evidence with application of Da vinci® robot-assisted low anterior resection in rectal cancer.
  • Fluorescence Imaging on the da Vinci® Surgical System for Intra-operative Near Infrared Imaging of the Biliary Tree (up to 2-weeks postoperatively): This study by Intuitive Surgical hypothesized that the da Vinci® Fluorescence Imaging Vision System provides real-time endoscopic near infrared fluorescence imaging of the biliary anatomy as defined as identifying biliary vessels; either cystic duct, common hepatic duct (CHD) or common bile duct (CBD). Irradiation given to the patient during a classic cholangiography can be reduced.

Expert Subcommittee Recommendation

This expert panel convened by the SAGES Technology and Value Assessment Committee finds that:

With regards to safety:

  • The da Vinci® Surgical System for gastrointestinal surgery does not demonstrate increased morbidity or mortality compared with laparoscopic surgery.
  • With proper training, there is enough data to regard the da Vinci® Surgical System as safe. As with any new surgical technology, complications may be more likely without adequate training.

With regards to efficacy:

  • Surgery with the da Vinci® Surgical System is as effective, but not demonstrated to be superior to conventional laparoscopic surgery of the gastrointestinal tract. It appears to have similar benefits to laparoscopic surgery when compared with open.
  • There is insufficient data to know if the oncologic outcomes in surgery using the da Vinci® Surgical System are equivalent or superior to conventional laparoscopic surgery.

With regards to cost:

  • The da Vinci® Surgical System is more costly, including fixed costs for the equipment and servicing, as well as per case cost in terms of OR time, and use of consumables.
  • Published data assessing the value of da Vinci® robotic surgery does not exist, in both the short and long term, taking into account direct and indirect measures of cost and quality. Future analyses should include quality and costs to the health care system as a whole.

Conclusions:

  • Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci® Surgical System is safe and comparable to standard laparoscopic approaches.
  • Surgical outcomes with the da Vinci® Surgical System are not superior to
    laparoscopy.

All studies that have evaluated costs indicate an increase in procedure-related costs, and frequently in OR time-related costs.

  • On the basis of available evidence, this panel concludes that the da Vinci® Surgical System is a clinically acceptable but costly platform for use in selected gastrointestinal procedures such as Heller myotomy, Nissen fundoplication, paraesophageal hernia repair, gastrectomy, liver resection, pancreatic resections, bariatric surgery, and colorectal surgery.
  • Data does not support a role for multi-port robotic cholecystectomy outside of its use for developing familiarity with robotic platforms by surgeons early in their learning curve.
  • There are insufficient data supporting the use of single-port platforms for robotic cholecystectomy.
  • Current data are limited to the da Vinci® Surgical System. Further analyses will be needed as other devices are introduced.

References

  1. Davies B. A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Engrs 2000; 214(H): 129–40.
  2. Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Belyansky I, Heniford BT (2013) Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from nationwide inpatient sample. Surg endosc 27: 109-117
  3. Nguyen NT, Goldman C, Rosenquist CJ, Arango A, Cole CJ, Lee SJ, Wolfe BM (2001) Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs. Ann Surg; 234(3):279-89
  4. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med; 350(20):2050-9
  5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al (2009) A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int;104(4):534-9
  6. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, et al (2013) A Multinational, Multiinstitutional Study Comparing Positive Surgical Margin Rates Among 22393 Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Patients. Eur Urol, Nov 24
  7. Davis J, Kreaden U, Gabbert J, Thomas R (2013) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. J Endourol; Dec 18 [Epub ahead of print]
  8. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN (2010) Efficacy of the da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262
  9. Anderson E, 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(1):107–114
  10. Annual report 2012 (2013) Intuitive Surgical Inc
  11. Barbash G, Glied A (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robotic-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med;363(8):701-4.
  12. Ahmed K; Khan MS; Vats A; Nagpal K; Priest O; Patel V; Vecht JA; Ashrafian H; et al. Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 2009; 7:431-440
  13. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, et al. Computer–enhanced versus standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6(1):11–16
  14. Melvin WS, Krause KR, Needleman BJ, et al. Computer assisted ”robotic” Heller myotomy: initial case report.J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2001; 11(4):251–253
  15. Talamini M, Chapman WC, Horgan S, et al. Evaluation of 211 ”robotic” surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 2003; 17:1521–1524
  16. Melvin WS, Krause KR, Needleman BJ, et al. Computer assisted ”robotic” foregut surgery, initial experience in North America. Surg Endosc 2002; 16(12):1790–1792
  17. Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Moser F, et al. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia facilitated by robotic assistance. Surg Endosc 2006 20(7):1105–1012
  18. Iqbal A, Hadner M, Desai K, et al. Technique and follow-up of minimally invasive Heller myotomy for achalasia. Surg Endosc 2006; 20(3):394–401
  19. Nakadi IE, Melot C, Closset J et al. Evaluation of da Vinci Nissen fundoplication clinical results and cost minimization. World J Surg 2006; 30:1050–1054
  20. Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C et al. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 2006 93:553–558
  21. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002; 16(10):1389–1402
  22. Costi R, Himpens J, Bruyns J et al. Robotic fundoplication: from theoretic advantages to real problems. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197(3):500–507
  23. D’Annibale A, Orsini C, Morpurgo E, Sovernigo G. Robotic surgery: considerations after 250 procedures. Chit Ital 2006; 58(1):5–14
  24. Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2-safety and efficacy. Surg Endosc 2007; 21(7):1054–1062
  25. Braumann C, Menenakos C, Rueckert JC et al. Computer-assisted laparoscopic repair of “upside-down” stomach with the Da Vinci system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2005; 15:285–289
  26. Ruurda JP, Draaisma WA, van Hillegersberg R et al. Robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a four-year single-center experience. Dig Surg 2005; 22:313–320
  27. Hanly EJ, Talamini MA. Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 2004; 188(4A Suppl):19S–26S
  28. Newlin ME, Mikami DJ, Melvin SW. Initial experience with the four-arm computer-enhanced telesurgery device in foregut surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg 2004: Tech A 14:121–124
  29. Melvin WS, Dundon JM, Talamini M, Horgan S. Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery minimizes esophageal perforation during Heller myotomy. Surgery 2005; 138:553–558, discussion 558-559
  30. Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Moser F, Baptista M, Donahue P, Horgan S. Laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia facilitated by robotic assistance. Surg Endosc 2006; 20:1105–1112
  31. Iqbal A, Haider M, Desai K, Garg N, Kavan J, Mittal S, Filipi CJ. Technique and follow-up of minimally invasive Heller myotomy for achalasia. Surg Endosc (2006) 20(3):394-401
  32. Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV et al. Robotic-assisted Heller myotomy versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg 2005; 9:1020–1029, discussion 1029-30
  33. Draaisma WA, Ruurda JP, Scheffer RC et al. Randomized clinical trial of standard laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg 2006; 93(11):1351–1359
  34. Müller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2007; 21(10):1800–1805
  35. Heemskerk J, van Gmert WG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan 2007; Tech 17(1):1–4
  36. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al. Robotics in general surgery. Arch Surg 2003; 138:777–784
  37. Anderson C, Ellenhorn J, Hellan M et al. Pilot series of robot-assisted laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 2007; 21:1662–1666
  38. Anderson C, Ellenhorn J, Pigazzi A. Robotic gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer, Chap. 22. In : Medical robotics (2008). Vanja Bozovic. I-Tech Education and Publishing, Vienna, pp 305–314
  39. Huscher CG, Mingoli A, Sgarzini G et al. Totally laparoscopic total and subtotal gastrectomy with extended lymph node dissection for early and advanced gastric cancer: early and long-term results of a 100 patient series. Am J Surg 2007; 194:839–844
  40. Kitano S, Shiraishi N, Ichiro U et al. Japanese Laparoscopic Surgery Study Group. A Multicenter study on oncologic outcome of laparoscopic gastrectomy for early cancer in Japan. Ann Surg 2007; 245:68–72
  41. Mochiki E, Kaniyama Y, Aihara R et al. Laparoscopic assisted distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Five years’ experience. Surgery 2005; 137:317–322
  42. Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F et al. Total and subtotal laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 2007; 21:21–27
  43. Pugliese R, Maggioni D, Sansonna F et al (2008) Outcomes and survival after laparoscopic gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma. Analysis on 65 patients operated on by conventional or robot-assisted minimal access procedures. EJSO. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008 02.001
  44. Shirahishi N, Yasuda K, Kitano S. Laparoscopic gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2006; 9:167–176
  45. Ziqiang W, Feng Q, Zhimin C et al. Comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open radical distal gastrectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer management. Surg Endosc 2006; 20:1738–1743
  46. Pernazza G, Gentile E, Felicioni L et al (2006) Improved early survival after robotic gastrectomy in advanced gastric cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2006; 16:286
  47. Lee YJ, Ha WS, Park ST et al. Port-site recurrence after laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy: report of the first case. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2007; 17:455–457
  48. Li C, Kim S, Lai JF et al (2008) Lymph node dissection around the splenic artery and hilum in advanced middle third gastric carcinoma. EJSO. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008.03.011
  49. Douglass HO Jr, Hundahl SA, Macdonald JS et al. Gastric cancer: D2 Dissection or Low Maruyama Index-Based Surgery—a Debate. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2007; 16:133–135
  50. Kim MC, Heo GU, Jung GJ. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: surgical techniques and clinical merits. Surg Endosc 2010; 24(3):610-5.
  51. Owen B, Simorov A, Siref A, Shostrom V, Oleynikov D. How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc 2014.
  52. Cirocchi R, Boselli C, Santoro A, Guarino S, Covarelli P, Renzi C, Listorti C,Trastulli S, Desiderio J, Coratti A, Noya G, Redler A, Parisi A. Current status of robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. BMC Surg. 2013 Nov 7
  53. Fourman MM, Saber AA: Robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review.Surg Obes Relat Dis 2012, 8(4):483–488.
  54. Gill RS, Al-Adra DP, Birch D, et al: Robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot 2011. doi: 10.1002/rcs.400.
  55. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010 Aug;252(2):254-62. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e6239e. Review. PubMed PMID: 20622659.
  56. Bailey JG, Hayden JA, Davis PJ, Liu RY, Haardt D, Ellsmere J. Robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) in obese adults ages 18 to 65 years: a systematic review and economic analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013 Oct 3. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 24196545.
  57. Sanchez BR, Mohr CJ, Morton JM, Safadi BY, Alami RS, Curet MJ. Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2005; 1(6): 549-54.
  58. Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, Huber O, Buchs N, Iranmanesh P, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2012; 22(1): 52-61.
  59. Ayloo SM, Addeo P, Buchs NC, Shah G, Giulianotti PC. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: is there a difference in outcomes? World J Surg. 2011; 35(3): 637-42.
  60. Snyder BE, Wilson T, Leong BY, Klein C, Wilson EB. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y Gastric bypass: minimizing morbidity and mortality. Obes Surg. 2010; 20(3): 265-70.
  61. Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Gypen B, Van Tu T, Vaneerdeweg W. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc. 2008; 22(7): 1690-6.
  62. Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Curet MJ. Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arch Surg. 2005; 140(8): 779-86.
  63. Park CW, Lam EC, Walsh TM, Karimoto M, Ma AT, Koo M, et al. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass performed in a community hospital setting: the future of bariatric surgery? Surg Endosc. 2011; 25(10): 3312-21.
  64. Artuso D, Wayne M, Grossi R. Use of robotics during laparoscopic gastric bypass for morbid obesity. JSLS. 2005; 9(3): 266-8.
  65. Myers SR, McGuirl J, Wang J. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic gastric bypass: comparison of short-term outcomes. Obes Surg. 2013; 23(4): 467-73.
  66. Scozzari G, Rebecchi F, Millo P, Rocchietto S, Allieta R, Morino M. Robot-assisted gastrojejunal anastomosis does not improve the results of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25(2): 597-603.
  67. Curet MJ, Curet M, Solomon H, Lui G, Morton JM. Comparison of hospital charges between robotic, laparoscopic stapled, and laparoscopic hand-sewn Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. J Robotic Surg. 2009; 3: 75-8.
  68. Benizri EI, Renaud M, Reibel N, Germain A, Ziegler O, Zarnegar R, et al. Perioperative outcomes after totally robotic gastric bypass: a prospective nonrandomized controlled study. Am J Surg. 2013; 206(2): 145-51.
  69. Tieu K, Allison N, Snyder B, Wilson T, Toder M, Wilson E. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: update from 2 high-volume centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Mar-Apr;9(2):284-8. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2011.11.022. Epub 2012 Jan PubMed PMID: 22361807.
  70. Schweitzer MA, Lidor A, Magnuson TH. A zero leak rate in 251 consecutive laparoscopic gastric bypass operations using a two-layer gastrojejunostomy technique. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg 2006; Tech A 16(2):83–87. doi:10.1089/lap.2006.16.83
  71. Nguyen NT, Hinojosa M, Fayad C, Varela E, Wilson SE. Use and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass at academic medical centers. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 205(2):248–255. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.03.011
  72. Edwards MA, Jones DB, Ellsmere J, Grinbaum R, Schneider BE. Anastomotic leak following antecolic versus retrocolic laparoscopic roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Obes Surg 2007; 17(3):292–297. doi:10.1007/s11695-007-9048-8
  73. Iselin C, Fateri F, Caviezel A, Schwartz J, Hauser J. Usefullness of the Da Vinci robot in urologic surgery. Rev Med Suisse 2007; 5(3):2766–2768
  74. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Buchs NC, Annechiarico M, Benedetti E. Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 2011; 149: 29–39.
  75. Chan OC, Tang CN, Lai EC, Yang GP, Li MK. Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011; 18: 471–80.
  76. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Coratti A, Bianco FM, Addeo P, Buchs NC. Totally robotic right hepatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 2011; 146: 844–850.
  77. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Ceribelli C, Spaziani A. Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 3815–24.
  78. Lai EC, Tang CN, Li MK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy: technique and surgical outcomes. Int J Surg 2012; 10: 11–15.
  79. Berber E, Akyildiz HY, Aucejo F, Gunasekaran G, Chalikonda S, Fung J. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB 2010; 12: 583–86.
  80. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Spaziani A, Lapalorcia LM, Casciola L. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted one-stage resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: a pilot study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2009; 16: 450–57.
  81. Wakabayashi G, Sasaki A, Nishizuka S, Furukawa T, Kitajima M. Our initial experience with robotic hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011; 18: 481–87.
  82. Choi GH, Choi SH, Kim SH, Hwang HK, Kang CM, Choi JS, Lee WJ. Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2247–58.
  83. Panaro F, Piardi T, Cag M, Cinqualbre J, Wolf P, Audet M. Robotic liver resection as a bridge to liver transplantation. JSLS 2011; 15: 86–89.
  84. Holloway RW, Brudie LA, Rakowski JA, Ahmad S. Robotic-assisted resection of liver and diaphragm recurrent ovarian carcinoma: description of technique. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 120: 419–22.
  85. Ho CM, Wakabayashi G, Nitta H, Ito N, Hasegawa Y, Takahara T. Systematic review of robotic liver resection. Surg Endosc. 2013 Mar; 27(3): 732-9.
  86. Berber E, Akyildiz HY, Aucejo F, Gunasekaran G, Chalikonda S, Fung J. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB 2010 Oct; 12(8): 583–586.
  87. Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM, Duan WD, Lu F, Dong JH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: initial experience. Ann Surg 2011 Feb; 253(2): 342–348.
  88. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, Steel J, Marsh W, Reddy SK, Bartlett DL. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 2014 Mar; 259(3): 549-55.
  89. Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Coratti A, Desiderio J, Parisi A, Falconi M. Current status of robotic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review. Surg Oncol 2013 Sep; 22 (3): 201-7.
  90. Zureikat AH1, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ 3rd. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 2013 Oct; 258(4): 554-9.
  91. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum;45(12):1689-94; discussion 1695-6.
  92. Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW (2003) Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum;46(12):1633-9.
  93. Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C (2002) Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A;12(4):225-32.
  94. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg;138(7):777-84.
  95. Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Crawford DL. Telerobotic surgery for right and sigmoid colectomies: 30 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 2006; 20(11):1713–1718
  96. Rawlings AL, Woodland JH, Vegunta RK, Crawford DL (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc;21(10):1701-8.
  97. Anvari M (2007) Remote telepresence surgery: the Canadian experience. Surg Endosc;21(4):537-41.
  98. DeNoto G, Rubach E, Ravikumar TS. A standardized technique for robotically performed sigmoid colectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2006; 16(6):551–556
  99. 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(12):2162-8.
  100. Luca F, Ghezzi TL, Valvo M, Cenciarelli S, Pozzi S, Radice D, Crosta C, Biffi R (2011) Surgical and pathological outcomes after right hemicolectomy: case-matched study comparing robotic and open surgery. Int J Med Robot; doi: 10.1002/rcs.398 May 11, 2011
  101. Pigazzi A, Garcia-Aguilar J (2010) Robotic colorectal surgery: for whom and for what? Dis Colon Rectum ;53(7):969-70.
  102. Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, Spinoglio G, Zampino MG, Sonzogni A, Crosta C, Andreoni B (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc;24(11):2888-94.
  103. Marecik SJ, Zawadzki M, Desouza AL, Park JJ, Abcarian H, Prasad LM (2011) Robotic cylindrical abdominoperineal resection with transabdominal levator transection. Dis Colon Rectum;54(10):1320-5.
  104. Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM (2010) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for anal cancer: feasibility and technical considerations. Int J Med Robot;6(4):399-404.
  105. Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A, Valvo M, Ceccarelli G, Casciola L, Biffi R, Garcia-Aguilar J, Baek JH (2010) Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol;17(6):1614-20.
  106. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Abcarian H (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum;53(7):1000-6.
  107. Fung AK, Aly EH (2013) Robotic colonic surgery: is it advisable to commence a new learning curve? Dis Colon Rectum;56(6):786-96.
  108. Xiong B, Ma L, Zhang C, Cheng Y (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2014.01.027 January 22, 2014
  109. Kim SH, Kwak JM (2013) Robotic total mesorectal excision: operative technique and review of the literature. Tech Coloproctol;17 Suppl 1:S47-53.
  110. Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JDL, Ballantyne GH, Paz IB. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2006; 20(10):1521–1525
  111. Baik SH, Kim NK, Lim DR, Hur H, Min BS, Lee KY (2013) Oncologic outcomes and perioperative clinicopathologic results after robot-assisted tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol;20(8):2625-32.
  112. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Park JJ, Zimmern A, Abcarian H (2010) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: the potential advantage of robotic assistance. Dis Colon Rectum;53(12):1611-7.
  113. Kim NK, Kang J (2010) Optimal Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: the Role of Robotic Surgery from an Expert’s View. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010 Dec;26(6):377-87.
  114. Zimmern A, Prasad L, Desouza A, et al. Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131 cases. World J Surg. 2010; 34(8):1954-8.
  115. Kim NK, Aahn TW, Park JK, Lee KY, Lee WH, Sohn SK, Min JS (2002) Assessment of sexual and voiding function after total mesorectal excision with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in males with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum;45(9):1178-85.
  116. Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, Sonzogni A, Biffi R (2013) Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg;257(4):672-8.
  117. Collinson FJ, Jayne DG, Pigazzi A, et al (2012) An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis;27(2):233-41.
  118. Heemskerk J, de Hoog DE, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2007) Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum;50(11):1825-30.
  119. de Hoog DE, Heemskerk J, Nieman FH, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Bouvy ND (2009) Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case-control study. Int J Colorectal Dis;24(10):1201-6.
  120. Ragupathi M, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM (2010) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic “salvage” rectopexy for recurrent ileoanal J-pouch prolapse. Gastroenterol Res Pract;2010:790462. doi: 10.1155/2010/790462. April 18, 2010
  121. Ragupathi M1, Ramos-Valadez DI, Patel CB, Haas EM (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Surg Endosc;25(1):199-206.
  122. Spinoglio G, Summa M, Priora F, Quarati R, Testa S (2008) Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience. Dis Colon Rectum;51(11):1627-32.
  123. Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM (2011) Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc;25(3):855-60.
  124. Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, Díaz-Pavón JM, de la Portilla de Juan F, Prendes-Sillero E, Dussort HC, Padillo J (2013) Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis;28(6):815-21.
  125. Sng KK, Hara M, Shin JW, Yoo BE, Yang KS, Kim SH (2013) The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery. Surg Endosc;27(9):3297-307.
  126. Akmal Y, Baek JH, McKenzie S, Garcia-Aguilar J, Pigazzi A (2012) Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: is there a learning curve? Surg Endosc;26(9):2471-6.
  127. Joseph RA, Goh AC, Cuevas SP, Donovan MA, Kauffman MG, Salas NA, Miles B, Bass BL, Dunkin BJ (2010) “Chopstick” surgery: a novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc;24(6):1331-5.
  128. Joseph RA, Salas NA, Johnson C, Goh A, Cuevas SP, Donovan MA, Kaufman MG, Miles B, Reardon PR, Bass BL, Dunkin BJ (2010) Video. Chopstick surgery: a novel technique enables use of the Da Vinci Robot to perform single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc;24(12):3224.
  129. Ostrowitz MB, Eschete D, Zemon H, DeNoto G (2009) Robotic-assisted single-incision right colectomy: early experience. Int J Med Robot;5(4):465-70.
  130. Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Pedraza R, Haas EM (2010) Robotic-assisted single-incision laparoscopic partial cecectomy. Int J Med Robot;6(3):362-7.
  131. Morelli L, Guadagni S, Caprili G, Di Candio G, Boggi U, Mosca F (2013) Robotic right colectomy using the Da Vinci Single-Site® platform: case report. Int J Med Robot;9(3):258-61
  132. Bardakcioglu O (2013) Robotic transanal access surgery. Surg Endosc;27(4):1407-9.
  133. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Volonte F, Hagen ME, Morel P, Ris F (2013) Robotic transanal endoscopic microsurgery: technical details for the lateral approach. Dis Colon Rectum;56(10):1194-8.
  134. Hompes R, Rauh SM, Ris F, Tuynman JB, Mortensen NJ (2014) Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasms. Br J Surg;101(5):578-81.
  135. Morel P, Buchs NC, Iranmanesh P, Pugin F, Buehler L, Azagury DE, Jung M, Volonte F, Hagen ME. Robotic single-site cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2014 Jan; 21(1) 18-25.
  136. Gonzalez AM, Rabaza JR, Donkor C, Romero RJ, Kosanovic R, Verdeja JC. Single-incision cholecystectomy: a comparative study of standard laparoscopic, robotic, and SPIDER platforms. Surg Endosc 2013 Dec; 27(12): 4524-31.
  137. Buzard FA, Corne LM, Brown TC, Fagin RS, Hebert AE, Kaczmarek CA, Pack AN, Payne TN. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy: efficiency and cost analysis. Int J Med Robot 2013 Sep; 9(3): 265-70.
  138. Vidovszky TJ, Carr AD, Farinholt GN, Ho HS, Smith WH, Ali MR. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy in a broadly inclusive patient population: a prospective study. Ann Surg 2013 Oct 28 [Epub ahead of print]
  139. Daskalaki D, Fernandes E, Wang X, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Ayloo S, Masrur M,  Milone L, Giulianotti PC. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescent cholangiography during robotic cholecystectomy: results of 184 consecutive cases in a single institution. Surg Innov 2014 Mar 9 [Epub ahead of print]
  140. Ross SB, Sawangkum P, de La Vega KA, Luberice K, Rosemurgy AS. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC): an initial review of safety and feasibility. Minerva Chir 2013 Oct; 68(5): 435-43.
  141. Konstantinidis KM, Hirides P, Hirides S, Chrysocheris P, Georgiou M. Cholecystectomy using a novel Single-Site(®) robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc Sep; 26(9): 2687-94.
  142. Spinoglio G, Lenti LM, Maglione V, Lucido FS, Priora F, Bianchi PP, Grosso F, Quarati R. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc 2012 Jun; 26(6): 1648-55.
  143. Wren SM, Curet MJ. Single-port robotic cholecystectomy: results from a first human use clinical study of the new da Vinci single-site surgical platform. Arch Surg 2011 Oct; 146(10): 1122-7.
  144. Kroh M, El-Hayek K, Rosenblatt S, Chand B, Escobar P, Kaouk J, Chalikonda S. First human surgery with a novel single-port robotic system: cholecystectomy using the da Vinci Single-Site platform. Surg Endosc 2011 Nov; 25(11): 3566-73.
  145. Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L, Badessi F, Pugliese L, Vinci A, Klersy C, Spinoglio G. Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg 2012 Aug; 147(8): 709-14.
  146. Buchs NC, Hagen ME, Pugin F, Volonte F, Bucher P, Schiffer E, Morel P. Intra-operative fluorescent cholangiography suing indocyanin green during robotic single site cholecystectomy. Int J Med Robot 2012 Dec; 8(4): 436-40.

Disclosures

Dr. Brody is a consultant for Covidien, ViiNetwork, Medtronic, Ethicon, and Cooper Surgical. Dr. Gould is on the advisory committee for Torax Medical. Dr. Oleynikov is a board member for Vitrual Incision Corporation and receives research grant from LifeCell Corporation. Dr. Ross is a speaker for Olympus and consultant for Covidien. Dr. Sandler is a speaker for Bard-Davol, Inc. and Ethicon, Inc., and is a consultant for ValenTx, Inc. Dr. Satava receives a research grant from Institute of Surgical Excellence, and is a consultant for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Minister of Health and InTouch. Dr. Tsuda is a proctor for Intuitive Surgical and is a speaker for Acelity. Dr. Azagury, Dr. Haas, and Dr. Hutter have nothing to disclose.

7,457