Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Initial experience with a dual-console robotic-assisted platform for training in colorectal surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with several patient-related benefits, including reduced length of hospital stay and reduced blood loss. Robotic-assisted surgery offers many advantages when compared with standard laparoscopic procedures, including a stable three-dimensional binocular camera platform, motion smoothing and motion scaling, improved dexterity and ergonomics. There are limited data on the effectiveness of the dual-console DaVinci Xi platform for teaching resident surgeons. The goal of this study was to examine preliminary outcomes following the introduction of a dual-console robotic platform in our institution.

Methods

A retrospective review of our prospectively maintained patient database was performed. The first ten dual-console resident-performed procedures in colorectal surgery were compared with matched cases performed on a single console by the trainer. Patient demographics, operative times and patient outcomes were compared.

Results

Twenty patients were included in this study. There was no significant difference in console time (p = 0.46) or total operative time (p = 0.52) when residents and trainers were compared. Patient outcomes were equivalent, with no difference in length of stay, morbidity or mortality.

Conclusions

The DaVinci Xi dual-console platform is a safe and effective platform for training junior surgeons. The dual-console system has the potential to alter surgical training pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Becker A, Pradel L, Kluth L et al (2015) Laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal masses: no impact of surgical approach on perioperative complications and long-term postoperative quality of life. World J Urol 33(3):421–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365(9472):1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 373(2):194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F et al (2014) Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 100(1):75–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuhry E, Schwenk WF, Gaupset R, Romild U, Bonjer HJ (2008) Long-term results of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(2):CD003432

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schootman M, Hendren S, Ratnapradipa K, Stringer L, Davidson NO (2016) Adoption of robotic technology for treating colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 59(11):1011–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Denoya P, Wang H, Sands D, Nogueras J, Weiss E, Wexner SD (2010) Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Surg Endosc 24(4):933–938

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sara S, Poncet G, Voirin D, Laverriere MH, Anglade D, Faucheron JL (2010) Can adequate lymphadenectomy be obtained by laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer? Results of a case-control study in 200 patients. J Gastrointest Surg 14(8):1244–1247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang X, Wei Z, Bie M, Peng X, Chen C (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 30(12):5601–5614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Martinez-Perez A, Carra MC, Brunetti F, de’Angelis N (2017) Pathologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 152(4):e165665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bosker R, Groen H, Hoff C, Totte E, Ploeg R, Pierie JP (2013) Early learning effect of residents for laparoscopic sigmoid resection. J Surg Educ 70(2):200–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Major P, Wysocki M, Dworak J, Pędziwiatr M, Małczak P, Budzyński A (2016) Are bariatric operations performed by residents safe and efficient? Surg Obes Relat Dis 13(4):614–621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiran RP, Ahmed Ali U, Coffey JC, Vogel JD, Pokala N, Fazio VW (2012) Impact of resident participation in surgical operations on postoperative outcomes: national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 256(3):469–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dull MB, Gier CP, Carroll JT, Hutchison DD, Hobbs DJ, Gavel JC et al (2016) Resident impact on operative duration for elective general surgical procedures. Am J Surg 213(3):456–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nijhof HW, Silvis R, Vuylsteke RCLM, Oosterling SJ, Rijna H, Stockmann HBAC (2016) Training residents in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: is supervised surgery safe? Surg Endosc 31(6):2602–2606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wexner T, Rosales-Velderrain A, Wexner SD, Rosenthal RJ (2016) Does implementing a general surgery residency program and resident involvement affect patient outcomes and increase care-associated charges? Am J Surg 214(1):147–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Díaz-Pavón JM et al (2016) Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(12):1807–1815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guend H, Widmar M, Patel S et al (2016) Developing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program: understanding institutional and individual learning curves. Surg Endosc 31(7):2820–2828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Foo CC, Law WL (2016) The learning curve of robotic-assisted low rectal resection of a novice rectal surgeon. World J Surg 40(2):456–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coffey JC, Lavery I, Sehgal R (2017) Mesenteric principles of gastrointestinal surgery: basic and applied science, 1st edn. CRC Press, London, p 357

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ladapo JA, Horwitz JR, Weinstein MC, Gazelle GS, Cutler DM (2009) Adoption and spread of new imaging technology: a case study. Health Aff (Millwood) 28(6):w1122–w1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McHugh M, Osei-Anto A, Klabunde CN, Galen BA (2011) Adoption of CT colonography by US hospitals. J Am Coll Radiol 8(3):169–174

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Silva-Velazco J, Dietz DW, Stocchi L et al (2017) Considering value in rectal cancer surgery: an analysis of costs and outcomes based on the open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach for proctectomy. Ann Surg 265(5):960–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jolley J, Lomelin D, Simorov A, Tadaki C, Oleynikov D (2016) Resident involvement in laparoscopic procedures does not worsen clinical outcomes but may increase operative times and length of hospital stay. Surg Endosc 30(9):3783–3791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rothman JP, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Bardram L, Rosenberg J (2015) Less surgical experience has no impact on mortality and morbidity after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(6):492–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mikhail E, Salemi JL, Hart S, Imudia AN (2016) Comparing single and dual console systems in the robotic surgical training of graduating OB/GYN residents in the United States. Minim Invasive Surg. doi:10.1155/2016/5190152

    Google Scholar 

  27. Morgan MS, Shakir NA, Garcia-Gil M et al (2015) Single-versus dual-console robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in a teaching institution. World J Urol 33(6):781–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith AL, Scott EM, Krivak TC, Olawaiye AB, Chu T, Richard SD (2013) Dual-console robotic surgery: a new teaching paradigm. J Robot Surg 7(2):113–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH (2009) Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic resection in rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 13(2):275–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tekkis PP, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2005) Evaluation of the learning curve in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: comparison of right-sided and left-sided resections. Ann Surg 242(1):83–91

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Fergo C, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Kildebro N, Rosenberg J (2017) Three-dimensional laparoscopy vs 2-dimensional laparoscopy with high-definition technology for abdominal surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg 213(1):159–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Coffey JC, O’Leary DP (2016) The mesentery: structure, function, and role in disease. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 1(3):238–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    J. C. Bolger, M. A. Zarog, K. McKevitt, C. Peirce & J. C. Coffey

  2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    M. P. Broe, A. Looney & S. Giri

  3. Graduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    D. Walsh & J. C. Coffey

Authors
  1. J. C. Bolger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. P. Broe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Zarog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Looney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. McKevitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. Giri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. Peirce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J. C. Coffey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. C. Coffey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was provided by the local ethics committee.

Informed consent

All patients gave consent for inclusion.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 98819 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolger, J.C., Broe, M.P., Zarog, M.A. et al. Initial experience with a dual-console robotic-assisted platform for training in colorectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol 21, 721–727 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1687-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1687-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation