Safety Model for the Introduction of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology

Abstract

Objective To analyze the perioperative results and safety of performing gynecological surgeries using robot-assisted laparoscopy during implementation of the technique in a community hospital over a 6-year period.

Methods This was a retrospective observational study in which the medical records of 274 patients who underwent robotic surgery from September 2008 to December 2014 were analyzed. We evaluated age, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, procedures performed, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the presence of a proctor (experienced surgeon with at least 20 robotic cases), operative time, transfusion rate, perioperative complications, conversion rate, length of stay, referral to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality. We compared transfusion rate, perioperative complications and conversion rate between procedures performed by experienced and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor.

Results During the observed period, 3 experienced robotic surgeons performed 187 surgeries, while 87 surgeries were performed by 20 less experienced teams, always with the assistance of a proctor. The median patient age was 38 years, and the median BMI was 23.3 kg/m². The most frequent diagnosis was endometriosis (57%) and the great majority of the patients were classified as ASA I or ASA II (99.6%). The median operative time was 225 minutes, and the median length of stay was 2 days. We observed a 5.8% transfusion rate, 0.8% rate of perioperative complications, 1.1% conversion rate to laparoscopy or laparotomy, no patients referred to ICU, and no deaths. There were no differences in transfusion, complications and conversion rates between experienced robotic surgeons and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor.

Conclusion In our casuistic, robot-assisted laparoscopy demonstrated to be a safe technique for gynecological surgeries, and the presence of an experienced proctor was considered a highlight in the safety model adopted for the introduction of the robotic gynecological surgery in a high-volume hospital and, mainly, for its extension among several surgical teams, assuring patient safety.

Resumo

Objetivo Analisar os resultados perioperatórios e a segurança da realização de cirurgias ginecológicas por laparoscopia robô-assistida durante a implementação da técnica num hospital comunitário ao longo de 6 anos.

Métodos Este foi um estudo retrospectivo observacional, com análise dos prontuários de 274 pacientes que se submeteram à cirurgia robótica de setembro de 2008 a dezembro de 2014. Avaliamos idade, índice de massa corpórea (IMC), diagnóstico, procedimentos realizados, classificação da Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologia (ASA), presença de um preceptor (cirurgião experiente, com pelo menos 20 casos robóticos), tempo cirúrgico, taxa de transfusão, complicações perioperatórias, taxa de conversão, tempo de internação, encaminhamento para Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (UTI) e mortalidade. Comparamos taxa de transfusão, complicações perioperatórias e taxa de conversão entre procedimentos realizados por cirurgiões experientes com a técnica e cirurgiões iniciantes na robótica, sempre assistidos por um preceptor experiente.

Resultados Durante o período observado, 3 cirurgiões experientes realizaram 187 cirurgias, enquanto que 87 cirurgias foram realizadas por 20 equipes menos experientes, sempre com a presença de um preceptor. A mediana da idade foi 38 anos, e a mediana do IMC foi 23,3 kg/m². O diagnóstico mais frequente foi endometriose (57%) e a grande maioria das pacientes foi classificada como ASA I ou ASA II (99,6%). O tempo de cirurgia teve uma mediana de 225 minutos, e o tempo de permanência hospitalar teve uma mediana de 2 dias. Observamos 5,8% de taxa de transfusão, 0,8% de taxa de complicações perioperatórias, 1,1% de taxa de conversão para laparoscopia ou laparotomia e não houve pacientes encaminhadas à UTI, nem óbitos. Não houve diferença nos índices de transfusão, complicações e conversão entre cirurgiões experientes e cirurgiões iniciantes na robótica, assistidos por um preceptor experiente.

Conclusão Em nossa casuística, a laparoscopia robô-assistida demonstrou ser uma técnica segura para cirurgias ginecológicas, e a presença de um preceptor experiente foi considerada um ponto de destaque no modelo de segurança adotado para a introdução da cirurgia robótica em ginecologia num hospital de grande volume e, principalmente, na sua expansão entre diversas equipes cirúrgicas, mantendo a segurança das pacientes.

Keywords

robotics - robotic surgical procedures/adverse effects - gynecologic surgical procedures/methods - endometriosis/surgery - gynecology

Palavras-chave

robótica - procedimentos cirúrgicos robóticos/efeitos adversos - procedimentos cirúrgicos em ginecologia/métodos - endometriose/cirurgia - ginecologia

Contributors

Gomes M. T. V., Costa B. T., Parise Filho J. P., Vasconcelos A. L., Bottura B. F. and Marques R. M. contributed with project and interpretation of data, writing of the article, critical review of the intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.

• References

• 1 García OF, Olvera HR, Montoya JJ. [Telemedicine and robotic surgery in gynecology]. Ginecol Obst Mex 2008; 76: 161-166
• 2 Rafiq A, Merrell RC. Telemedicine for access to quality care on medical practice and continuing medical education in a global arena. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2005; 25 (01) 34-42 . Doi: 10.1002/chp.7
• 3 Satava RM. Looking forward. Surg Endosc 2006; 20 (Suppl. 02) S503-S504 . Doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-0057-9
• 4 Senapati S, Advincula AP. Telemedicine and robotics: paving the way to the globalization of surgery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 91 (03) 210-216 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.08.016
• 5 Fanfani F, Restaino S, Ercoli A. , et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: which should we use?. Minerva Ginecol 2016; 68 (04) 423-430
• 6 Cohn DE, Castellon-Larios K, Huffman L. , et al. A prospective, comparative study for the evaluation of postoperative pain and quality of recovery in patients undergoing robotic versus open hysterectomy for staging of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016; 23 (03) 429-434 . Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.01.002
• 7 Berlinger NT. Robotic surgery–squeezing into tight places. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 (20) 2099-2101
• 8 Dubin AK, Smith R, Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P. A comparison of robotic simulation performance on basic virtual reality skills: simulator subjective versus objective assessment tools. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24 (07) 1184-1189 . Doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.07.019
• 9 Elliott DS, Frank I, Dimarco DS, Chow GK. Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: Sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Surg 2004; 188 (4A, Suppl) 52S-56S . Doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.022
• 10 Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004; 11 (04) 511-518 . Doi: 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60085-0
• 11 Bush SH, Apte SM. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology. Cancer Contr 2015; 22 (03) 307-313 . Doi: 10.1177/107327481502200308
• 12 Manchana T, Puangsricharoen P, Sirisabya N. , et al. Comparison of perioperative and oncologic outcomes with laparotomy, and laparoscopic or robotic surgery for women with endometrial cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16 (13) 5483-5488 . Doi: 10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.13.5483
• 13 O'Malley DM, Smith B, Fowler JM. The role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol 2015; 112 (07) 761-768 . Doi: 10.1002/jso.23988
• 14 Li CY, Wang JW, Jia JT, Zhang NW. [Review of the developmental history of robotic surgery]. Zhonghua Yi Shi Za Zhi 2010; 40 (04) 229-233 . Doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0255-7053.2010.04.008
• 15 Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS 2009; 13 (02) 125-128
• 16 Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006; 191 (04) 555-560 . Doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.01.011
• 17 Hanssens S, Nisolle M, Leguevaque P. , et al. Place de la robotique dans l'endométriose pelvienne profonde : à propos du registre de la SERGS. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2014; 42 (11) 744-748 . Doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2014.09.005
• 18 Fastrez M, Goffin F, Vergote I. , et al. Multi-center experience of robot-assisted laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for staging of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92 (08) 895-901 . Doi: 10.1111/aogs.12150
• 19 Cheng HY, Chen YJ, Wang PH. , et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic complex myomectomy: a single medical center's experience. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 54 (01) 39-42 . Doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.11.004
• 20 Corrado G, Cutillo G, Pomati G. , et al. Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015; 41 (08) 1074-1081 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.020
• 21 Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 132 (03) 284-291 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.08.008
• 22 Kristensen SE, Mosgaard BJ, Rosendahl M. , et al. Robot-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology: current status and controversies on patient benefits, cost and surgeon conditions - a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96 (03) 274-285 . Doi: 10.1111/aogs.13084