No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case–control study of 263 patients

Helvind, Neel Maria; Eriksen, Jens; Mogensen, Anders Skibsted; Taş, Buket; Olsen, Jeppe; Bundgaard, Mads; Jakobsen, Henrik; Gögenür, Ismail

doi:10.1007/s00464-013-2792-z

Cited by 32 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, most studies [25e30] reported a longer operating time in RC group than in LC group, which is mainly caused by the time taken to dock the robot. Helvind [32] have reported longer setup time for RC (77.1 versus 69.7 min, P ¼ 0.000), but shorter surgical time for RC (165.8 versus 183.4 min, P ¼ 0.006), and there was no difference in the overall procedure time (254.0 versus 243.6 min, P ¼ 0.086). Operating time may also depend on the experience, skill of the surgeon, and technique used, whether fully robotic or the hybrid technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

Chang¹,

Wang²,

Chang³

2015

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

Chang¹,

Wang²,

Chang³

2015

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One study, a retrospective case control study of 263 patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic curative surgery for colonic cancer, found no difference in overall duration, because although the set-up time was significantly longer, this was balanced out by a significantly shorter operative time (Helvind et al 2013). The authors of this study argue that the shorter operative time is due to the technical advantages the robot provides to the surgeon.…”

Section: How Does Robotic Surgery Become Embedded Into Routine Practice?mentioning

confidence: 81%

Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While an increasing number of healthcare providers are purchasing surgical robots because of anticipated improvements in patient outcomes, their implementation into practice is highly variable. In robotic surgery, the surgeon is physically separated from the patient and the rest of the team with the potential to impact communication and decision making in the operating theatre and subsequently patient safety. Drawing on the approach of realist evaluation, in this article we review reports of the experience of surgical teams that have introduced robotic surgery to identify how and in what contexts robotic surgery is successfully integrated into practice and how and in what contexts it affects communication and decision making. Our analysis indicates that, while robotic surgery might bring about a number of benefits, it also creates new challenges. Robotic surgery is associated with increased operation duration, which has implications for patient safety, but strategies to reduce it can be effective with appropriate support from hospital administration and nursing management. The separation of the surgeon from the team can compromise communication but may be overcome through use of standardised communication. While surgeon situation awareness may be affected by the separation, the ergonomic benefits of robotic surgery may reduce stress and tiredness and enhance surgeon decision making. Our review adds to the existing literature by revealing strategies to support the introduction of robotic surgery and contextual factors that need to be in place for these to be effective.

show abstract

“…177 However, one study found no difference in overall duration because, although the set-up time was significantly longer, this was balanced out by a significantly shorter operative time, which the authors argued was due to the technical advantages that the robot provides to the surgeon. 178 Given the high cost of purchasing and maintaining a robotic system, minimising additional costs associated with increased operation duration was perceived by some as essential for ensuring that RAS is integrated into routine practice. 147,179 Overall, there was broad agreement in the perception that operation duration decreases as experience increases, with this often being attributed to a decrease in set-up time.…”

Section: A Realist Review Of Stakeholders' Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Randell

Honey

Hindmarsh

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/5005/04. The contractual start date was in September 2013. The final report began editorial review in September 2016 and was accepted for publication in February 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department...

show abstract

No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case–control study of 263 patients

Abstract: We found RC to be a safe and feasible alternative to LC for colonic cancer. We found that for RC surgical time was shorter and overall procedure time was comparable to that for LC; however, these results should be confirmed in future randomized clinical trials.

Cited by 32 publications

References 23 publications

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About