A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and hand-sewn intestinal sutured anastomoses performed by residents
- PMID: 17320533
- DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.09.018
A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and hand-sewn intestinal sutured anastomoses performed by residents
Abstract
Background: Robotic surgery offers all the advantages of laparoscopy with additional increased accuracy. The use of robotic surgery has increased in the past 5 years. It has proven particularly useful in complex surgical procedures such as intracorporeal intestinal anastomosis. As the prevalence of robotic surgery increases, so will the need for residents to be able to perform surgery using the robotic system. Our goal was to compare hand-sewn, laparoscopic, and robotic suturing techniques performed by midlevel residents using a porcine intestinal model.
Methods: Fifteen residents unfamiliar with the robotic suturing technique participated in performing an initial hand-sewn suture line and then were randomized with cross-over to laparoscopic or robotic suturing. Completion time, leak pressure, number of sutures per cm, and difficulty level were assessed.
Results: The mean leak pressure for hand-sewn, laparoscopic, and robotic suturing was 9.5, 3.2, and 11.4 mm Hg, respectively. The laparoscopic group had 6 and the robotic group had 1 suture line that was inadequate for testing. Suture breakage was common in the robotic group. The anastomosis was considered hard by 92% in the laparoscopic group versus 17% in the robotic group. The time it took to complete 1 cm of anastomosis was .9, 8.7, and 8.3 minutes for hand-sewn, laparoscopic, and robotic suturing, respectively.
Conclusion: The robotic suture line performed by midlevel residents was superior to laparoscopy, although the time for anastomosis was equivalent.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis.Am J Surg. 2008 Mar;195(3):333-7; discussion 337-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.12.013. Am J Surg. 2008. PMID: 18206847 Clinical Trial.
-
Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room.J Am Coll Surg. 2005 Jul;201(1):23-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.02.021. J Am Coll Surg. 2005. PMID: 15978440 Clinical Trial.
-
Robot-assisted laparoscopic intestinal anastomosis.Surg Endosc. 2003 Feb;17(2):236-41. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002-9016-2. Epub 2002 Oct 29. Surg Endosc. 2003. PMID: 12399841
-
Robotic suturing: technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery.Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2008;17(3):160-7. doi: 10.1080/13645700802103381. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2008. PMID: 18609002 Review.
-
Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment.Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124(6):1642-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3822. Epub 2009 Nov 16. Pediatrics. 2009. PMID: 19917586 Review.
Cited by
-
Lowering gastrointestinal leak rates: a comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass.J Robot Surg. 2008 Sep;2(3):159-63. doi: 10.1007/s11701-008-0104-8. Epub 2008 Sep 2. J Robot Surg. 2008. PMID: 27628253
-
The transferability of laparoscopic and open surgical skills to robotic surgery.Adv Simul (Lond). 2022 Sep 5;7(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s41077-022-00223-2. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022. PMID: 36064750 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.J Robot Surg. 2016 Sep;10(3):239-44. doi: 10.1007/s11701-016-0580-1. Epub 2016 Apr 25. J Robot Surg. 2016. PMID: 27112781
-
Transferability of the robot assisted and laparoscopic suturing learning curves.J Robot Surg. 2024 Jan 27;18(1):56. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01753-1. J Robot Surg. 2024. PMID: 38280121 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Robotic duodenojejunostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome in a teenager.J Robot Surg. 2010 Dec;4(4):265-9. doi: 10.1007/s11701-010-0215-x. Epub 2010 Sep 17. J Robot Surg. 2010. PMID: 27627956
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous