Incorporating Robotic Cholecystectomy in an Acute Care Surgery Practice Model is Feasible.

Aricia Shen, Galinos Barmparas, Nicolas Melo, R. Chung, Miguel Burch, Umar F Bhatti, D. Margulies, Andrew S Wang
{"title":"Incorporating Robotic Cholecystectomy in an Acute Care Surgery Practice Model is Feasible.","authors":"Aricia Shen, Galinos Barmparas, Nicolas Melo, R. Chung, Miguel Burch, Umar F Bhatti, D. Margulies, Andrew S Wang","doi":"10.1177/00031348241248816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nThe role of robotic surgery in the nonelective setting remains poorly defined. Accessibility, patient acuity, and high turn-over may limit its applicability and utilization. The goal is to characterize the role of robotic cholecystectomy (CCY) in a busy acute care surgery (ACS) practice at a quaternary medical center, and compare surgical outcomes and resource utilization between robotic and laparoscopic CCY.\n\n\nMETHODS\nAdult patients who underwent robotic (Da Vinci Xi) or laparoscopic CCY between 01/2021-12/2022 by an ACS attending within 1 week of admission were included. Primary outcomes included time from admission to surgery, off hour (weekend and 6p-6a) cases, operation time, and hospital costs, to reflect \"feasibility\" of robotic compared to laparoscopic CCY. Secondary outcomes encompassed surgery-related outcomes and complications.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe proportion of robotic CCY increased from 5% to 32% within 2 years. In total 361 laparoscopic and 89 robotic CCY were performed. Demographics and gallbladder disease severity were similar. Feasibility measures-operation time, case start time, time from admission to surgery, proportion of off-hour cases, and cost-were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic CCY. There were no differences in surgical complications, common bile duct injury, readmission, or mortality. Conversion to open surgery occurred more often in laparoscopic cases (5% vs 0%, P = .02, OR = 1.05).\n\n\nDISCUSSION\nRobotic CCY is associated with fewer open conversions and otherwise similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic CCY in the non-elective setting. Incorporation of robotic CCY in a busy ACS practice model is feasible with available resources.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"126 44","pages":"31348241248816"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241248816","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The role of robotic surgery in the nonelective setting remains poorly defined. Accessibility, patient acuity, and high turn-over may limit its applicability and utilization. The goal is to characterize the role of robotic cholecystectomy (CCY) in a busy acute care surgery (ACS) practice at a quaternary medical center, and compare surgical outcomes and resource utilization between robotic and laparoscopic CCY. METHODS Adult patients who underwent robotic (Da Vinci Xi) or laparoscopic CCY between 01/2021-12/2022 by an ACS attending within 1 week of admission were included. Primary outcomes included time from admission to surgery, off hour (weekend and 6p-6a) cases, operation time, and hospital costs, to reflect "feasibility" of robotic compared to laparoscopic CCY. Secondary outcomes encompassed surgery-related outcomes and complications. RESULTS The proportion of robotic CCY increased from 5% to 32% within 2 years. In total 361 laparoscopic and 89 robotic CCY were performed. Demographics and gallbladder disease severity were similar. Feasibility measures-operation time, case start time, time from admission to surgery, proportion of off-hour cases, and cost-were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic CCY. There were no differences in surgical complications, common bile duct injury, readmission, or mortality. Conversion to open surgery occurred more often in laparoscopic cases (5% vs 0%, P = .02, OR = 1.05). DISCUSSION Robotic CCY is associated with fewer open conversions and otherwise similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic CCY in the non-elective setting. Incorporation of robotic CCY in a busy ACS practice model is feasible with available resources.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将机器人胆囊切除术纳入急症护理外科实践模式是可行的。
引言 机器人手术在非选择性手术中的作用仍未明确。可及性、患者急诊率和高周转率可能会限制其适用性和利用率。该研究旨在描述机器人胆囊切除术(CCY)在一家四级医疗中心繁忙的急诊外科(ACS)实践中的作用,并比较机器人胆囊切除术和腹腔镜胆囊切除术的手术效果和资源利用率。方法纳入2021年1月至2022年12月期间,入院1周内由ACS主治医师接受机器人(达芬奇Xi)或腹腔镜胆囊切除术的成人患者。主要结果包括从入院到手术的时间、非工作时间(周末和下午 6 点到上午 6 点)病例、手术时间和住院费用,以反映机器人CCY与腹腔镜CCY相比的 "可行性"。次要结果包括手术相关结果和并发症。结果机器人CCY的比例在两年内从5%上升到32%。共进行了361例腹腔镜和89例机器人CCY手术。人口统计学和胆囊疾病严重程度相似。机器人和腹腔镜CCY的可行性指标--手术时间、病例开始时间、从入院到手术的时间、非工作时间病例的比例和成本--相当。在手术并发症、胆总管损伤、再入院和死亡率方面没有差异。腹腔镜病例转为开腹手术的比例更高(5% vs 0%,P = 0.02,OR = 1.05)。在现有资源条件下,将机器人CCY纳入繁忙的ACS实践模式是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bile Duct Injuries During Urgent Cholecystectomy at a Safety Net Teaching Hospital: Attending Experience and Time of Day May Matter. From Bytes to Best Practices: Tracing ChatGPT-3.5's Evolution and Alignment With the National Comprehensive Cancer Network® Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Management. The USCENTCOM Walking Blood Bank Performance Benchmark and Anticipated Benefit of Universal Low Titer Type O Screening. Contemporary Outcomes and Patterns of Injury Associated With Parachuting Accidents. To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1