Robotic surgeries: an initial experience in a multispeciality hospital

Vijaykumar C. Bada, V. Pavankumar, Patwadi Ajay Kumar, Shilpi Reddy, V. Sasanka


Background: The use of robotic surgical systems is an expanding technology in the world. Robot-assisted surgery overcomes some limitations of laparoscopy. Aim was to evaluate a single surgeon’s experience with safety, feasibility, complications, and short- and long-term outcomes for robotic assisted procedures.

Methods: It was a prospective study of 39 patients operated by robotic assistance performed 39 surgeries from November 2018 to June 2020 in three departments with follow up of 2 years. The surgeries performed included gastroenterology, gynecological and urological system.

Results: It was a prospective, analytical and descriptive study. In total 39 cases in present study followed up for 3 years. Most of the patients in study are in >65 years age group, and females have been operated mostly. Surgeries in our hospital done with robotic assistance ware 13 cases (33.3%) in gastroenterology department, gynecological department with total 17 cases (42.5%) and in urology department it was 9 cases (23.2%). Gastroenterology surgeries took less time of 100 minutes. Blood loss in gynecological surgeries was more compared to other departments with 103 ml followed by urology 98 ml. Hospital stay in present study was less for gynecological surgeries with one day of admission. All over complications are around 2.5%. Success rate in our study was 97.5%.

Conclusions: It was concluded that robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment.


Complications, Feasibility, Robot-assisted surgeries

Full Text:



Van Dam P, Hauspy J, Verkinderen L, Trinh XB, Van Dam PJ, Van Looy L, et al. Are costs of robot-assisted surgery warranted for gynecological procedures? Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:973830.

Hockstein NG, Gourin CG, Faust RA, Terris DJ. A history of robots: from science fiction to surgical robotics. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(2):113-8.

Suárez EJ, Wong RO, Reyes GR, Caballero DV, Figueroa JA, Santamaría JR. Initial experience in minimally invasive robotic surgery in third level hospital in Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Cirugía Endoscópica. 2016;17(1):29-33.

Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Billatos ES, Zorn KC, Gong EM, Brendler CB, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy- first 100 patients with one year of follow up. Urology. 2006;68:1275-9.

Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcome of 500 cases. BJU Int. 2007;99:1109-12.

Sarlos D, Kots L, Steanovic N, Von Felton S, Schar G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized control trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:604-11.

Patzkowsky KE, As-Sanie S, Smorgick N, Song AH, Advincula AP. Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. JSLS. 2013;17:100-6.

Landeen LB, Bell MC, Hubert HB, Bennis LY, Knutsen-Larson SS, Seshadri-Kreaden U. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. South Dakota Med. 2011;64:197-203.

Soto E, Lo Y, Friedman K, Soto C, Nezhat F, Chuang L, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci hysterectomy: Is using the robot benefical? J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22:253-9.

Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend C, Jr. Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1271-3.

Lee SJ, Calderon B, Gardner GJ, Mays A, Nolans S, Sonoda Y, et al. The feasibility and safety of same day discharge after robotic assisted hysterectomy alone or with other procedures for benign and malignant indications. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:552-5.

Martino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, Shubella J, Gosciniak G, Wejkszner T, et al. A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: Robotic vs. non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:389-93.

Berber E, Akyildiz HY, Aucejo F, Gunasekaran G, Chalikonda S, Fung J. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(8):583-6.

Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM, Duan WD, Lu F, Dong JH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: initial experience. Ann Surg. 2011;253(2):342-8.

Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, Caniglia F, Laurenzi A, Puleo F, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(10):2973-9.

Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, Steel J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg. 2014;259(3):549-55.

Pigazzi A, Luca F, Patriti A, Valvo M, Ceccarelli G, Casciola L, et al. Multicentric study on robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1614-20.

D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(12):2162-8.

Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA Jr, Morgan DM. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:650.e1-8.

Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Villa M, Sportelli C, Pezzotta MG. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for post hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a case series of 31 patients by a single surgeon with a long term follow-up. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69:13-7.

Zygomalas A, Kehagias I, Giokas K, Koutsouris D. Miniature surgical robots in the era of NOTES and LESS: dream or reality? Surg Innov. 2015;22(1):97-107.

Idrees K, Barlett DL. Robotic liver surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;90(4):761-74.