Scope and challenges of robotic surgery: a trainee’s perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20252679Keywords:
Da vinci, Oncology, Robotic surgery, TraineeAbstract
Background: Robotic surgical technology is here to stay and training on the platform is a necessity for all surgeons. It is an advancement over laparoscopy as a minimally invasive technique. It overcomes many challenges associated with laparoscopy while simplifying the learning process of minimally invasive surgery.
Methods: It is a prospective observational study of patients who presented to the administrative unit within the Department of Surgical Oncology, MNJ institute of oncology and regional cancer center and planned for robotic surgical procedure
Results: A total of 59 cases have been performed in a single administrative unit of Department of Surgical Oncology, MNJ institute of oncology and Regional Cancer Center from September 2023 to January 2025 over a period of 17 months of which 61 % (n=36) were females and 39% (n=23) were males. The age range of operated patients was 23- 72 years. 51-60 years was the most common age group 28.8% (n=17). Colorectal surgeries and gynecological surgeries share 42.3% each (n=25). The most common surgery performed was robotic radical hysterectomy 40.6% (n=24) which mimics patient load patterns of the department.
Conclusions: Learning skill sets over the robotic platform is facilitated by the prior learnings in executing laparoscopic surgery. The authors do not agree to popular misconception that one needs to unlearn certain skills from laparoscopic surgery to transform into robotic surgeons and infact, they believe prior laparoscopic experience is a favorable qualification.
Metrics
References
Dare AJ, Anderson BO, Sullivan R, Pramesh CS, Yip CH, Ilbawi A, Adewole IF, Badwe RA, Gauvreau CL. Surgical services for cancer care. Cancer Dis Cont Priorit. 2015;5:223-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0349-9_ch13
Condon B, Bagguley D, Lawrentschuk N. Myth busting patient's pain: comparing robotic-assisted verses open radical prostatectomies. Gland Surg. 2020;9(2):485-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2020.01.01
Weiss S, Krause M, Frosch KH. Clinical results after arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: A prospective randomized trial comparing two different surgical techniques. Arch Orthopaed Trau Surg. 2023;143(2):967-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04403-7
Philipose KJ, Sinha B. Laparoscopic surgery. Med J Armed Forces India. 1994;50(2):137-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-1237(17)31019-5
Ferrarese A, Gentile V, Bindi M, Rivelli M, Cumbo J, Solej M, et al. The learning curve of laparoscopic holecystectomy in general surgery resident training: old age of the patient may be a risk factor. Open Med (Wars). 2016;26;11(1):489-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2016-0086
Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, Darzi A, Kneebone R. The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery. 2010;147:318–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.007
Köckerling F. Robotic vs. Standard Laparoscopic Technique - What is Better. Front Surg. 2014;15:15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2014.00015
Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, et al. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. CADTH Technol Overv. 2012;2(2):2203.
Hoeppner J. Robotic Cancer Surgery. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(19):4931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13194931
Gangemi A, Chang B, Bernante P, Poggioli G. Robotic surgery: rediscovering human anatomy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23):12744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312744
Khosla A, Ponsky TA. Use of operative laparoscopes in single-port surgery: The forgotten tool. J Minim Access Surg. 2011;7(1):116-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.72403
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
