The Great Debate: Robotic vs Traditional Surgical Approach in the Acute Care Setting

Abstract

Robotic surgery was first introduced in the 1980s as a system to aid patients in the battlefield. Since then, robotic surgery has become an important minimally invasive tool and plays an important role in elective surgery among various surgical specialties. However, the role for robotic surgery in the emergent setting is not well established or studied. Robotic surgery has been shown to be advantageous to both patients and operating surgeons. Though limited, studies have found robotic surgery in the acute setting to be safe for patients. These studies found robotic surgery to have improved perioperative outcomes when compared to an open or laparoscopic approach. Additionally, the robotic platform is thought to be an effective tool to prevent conversion to open procedures in emergent settings. Although some studies demonstrate advantages to robotic acute surgery, others have shown increased complications with robotic acute surgery or no distinct advantage when comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery. Additionally, some of the published papers supporting the use of robotic surgery in the emergent setting may have a degree of bias favoring the robotic platform. Robotic surgery is a mainstay in minimally invasive elective surgery and gaining popularity among patients and surgeons. There are pros and cons to the adaptation of the robotic platform in the acute care setting. Additional large population studies are indicated to determine the true role of the robotic platform in the emergent setting.