The following study proposes and tests an integrated methodology involving Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) for the assessment of specific aspects related to robotic surgery involving safety, process and technology.
METHODS:
The integrated methodology consists of the application of specific techniques coming from the HTA joined to the aid of the most typical models from reliability engineering such as FMEA/FMECA. The study has also included in-site data collection and interviews to medical personnel.
RESULTS:
The total number of robotic procedures included in the analysis was 44: 28 for urology and 16 for general surgery. The main outcomes refer to the comparative evaluation between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery. Risk analysis and mitigation interventions come from FMECA application.
CONCLUSIONS:
The small sample size available for the study represents an important bias, especially for the clinical outcomes reliability. Despite this, the study seems to confirm the better trend for robotics' surgical times with comparison to the open technique as well as confirming the robotics' clinical benefits in urology. More complex situation is observed for general surgery, where robotics' clinical benefits directly measured are the lowest blood transfusion rate.
Da Vinci Xi Surgical System®: http: //intuitivesurgical.com/products/da-vinci-xi; [last access on the 5th, March 2015].
2.
LampeK, MäkeläM, GarridoMV, et al. The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2009; 25(2): 9-20. Copyright Cambridge University Press, 2009.
3.
MiniatiR, CecconiG, DoriF, MarchetttiM, BiffiGG, PorchiaB, PresicceG, FranchiS, GusinuR. Hospital-based health technology assessment on the use of mitral clips in the treatment of mitral regurgitation. Technology and Health Care. 2013; 21: 535-546.
4.
MiniatiR, FrosiniF, CecconiG, DoriF, BiffiGG. Development of sustainable models for technology evaluation in hospital. Technology and Health Care. 2014; 22: 729-739.
5.
WilsonTG. Advancement of technology and its impact on urologist: release of the da vinci xi, a new surgical robot. European Urology. 2014; 66: 793-794.
6.
HiguchiTT, GettmanMT. Robotic Instrumentation, Personnel and Operating Room Setup, Cap. 2, Atlas of Robotics Urologic Surgery, Current Clinical Urology, Su Li-Ming (Ed.), 2011, pp. 15-30.
7.
IranmaneshP, MorelP, WagnerOJ, InanI, PuginF, HagenME. Set-up and docking of the da Vinci® surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2010; 6: 57-60.
8.
IranmaneshP, MorelP, BuchsNC, PuginF, VolonteF, SeshadriU, KreadenUS, HagenME. Docking of the da Vinci® Si Surgical System with single-site technology. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2013; 9: 12-16.
9.
BreitensteinS, NocitoA, PuhanM, HeldU, WeberM, ClavienPA. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg. 2008; 247: 987-993.
10.
GiulianottiPC, CorattiA, AngeliniM, SbranaF, CecconiS, BalestracciT, CaravigliosG. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg. 2003; 138: 777-784.
11.
Italian Standard CEI EN 60812: 2006 (IEC 60812: 2006) Analysis Techniques for System Reliability - Procedure for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA).
12.
ThielDD, FrancisP, HeckmanMG, WinfieldHN. Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Journal of Endourology. 2008; 22: 1331-1338.
13.
LinkRE, BhayaniSB, KavoussiLR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Annals of Surgery. 2006; 243: 486-491.
14.
RozetF, JaffeJ, BraudG, HarmonJ, CathelineauX, BarretE, VallancienG. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. The Journal of Urology. 2007; 178: 478-482.
15.
MenonM, ShrivastavaA, TewariA, SarleR, HemalA, PeabodyJOVallancieG. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. The Journal of Urology. 2002; 168: 945-949.
16.
MottrieA, MigemPV, De NaeyerG, SchattemanP, CarpentierP, FonteyneE. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of 184 cases. European Urology. 2007; 52: 746-750.
17.
KimB, ChangA, KaswickJ, DerboghossiansA, JungH, SlezakJ, WuerstleM, WilliamsSG, ChienGW. Achieving proficiency with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Laparoscopic-trained versus robotics-trained surgeons. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013; 7: 11-12.
18.
JosephJV, VicenteI, MadebR, ErturkE, PatelHRH. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU International. 2005; 96: 39-42.
19.
Masson-LecomteA, BensalahK, SeringeE, VaessenC, De La TailleA, DoumercN, RischmannP, BruyèreF, SoustelleL, DroupyS, RouprêtM. A prospective comparison of surgical and pathological outcomes obtained after robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in moderate to complex renal tumours: results from a French multicentre collaborative study. BJU International. 2012; 111: 256-263.
20.
WangAJ, BhayaniSB. Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of > 100 consecutive procedures. Urology. 2009; 73: 306-310.
21.
BenwayBM, BhayaniSB, RogersCG, DulabonLM, PatelMN, LipkinM, WangAJ, StifelmanMD. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. The Journal of Urology. 2009; 182: 866-873.
22.
SchwentnerC, PelzerA, NeururerR, SpringerB, HorningerW, BartschG, PeschelR. Robotic anderson-hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU International. 2007; 100: 880-885.
23.
MufarrijPW, WoodsM, ShahOD, PaleseMA, BergerAD, ThomasR, StifelmanMD. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. The Journal of Urology. 2008; 180: 1391-1396.
24.
ChammasMF, Jr., MitreAI, HubertN, EgrotC, HubertJ. Robotic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2014; 18: 110-115.
25.
El NakadiI, MélotC, ClossetJ, DeMoorV, BétrouneK, FeronP, LingierP, GelinM. Evaluation of da vinci nissen fundoplication clinical results and cost minimization. World J Surg. 2006; 30: 1050-1054.
26.
MorinoM, PellegrinoL, GiacconeC, GarroneCRebecchiF. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic nissen fundoplication. British Journal of Surgery. 2006; 93: 553-558.
27.
Muller-StichBP, ReiterMA, WenteMN, BintintanVV, KoningerJ, BuchlerMW, GuttCN. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21: 1800-1805.
28.
Ari HakimiA, BlitsteinJ, FederM, ShapiroE, GhavamianR. Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology. 2009; 73: 119-123.
29.
MenonM, ShrivastavaA, TewariA, SarleR, HemalA, PeabodyJO, VallancienG. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. The Journal of Urology.2002; 168: 945-949.
30.
HuJC, NelsonRA, WilsonTG, KawachiMH, RaminSA, LauC, CrocittoLE. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Journal of Urology. 2006; 175: 541-546.
31.
MenonM, ShrivastavaA, KaulS, BadaniKK, FumoM, BhandariM, PeabodyJO. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. European Urology. 2007; 51: 648-658.
32.
EdouardJ, TrabulsiMD, JosephC, ZolaMD, LeonardG, GomellaMD, CostasD, LallasMD. Transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon institutional evolution. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original investigation. 2010; 28: 81-85.
33.
PloussardG, XylinasE, PaulA, GillionN, SalomonL, AlloryY, VordosD, HoznekA, YiouR, AbbouCC, and de la TailleA. Is robot assistance affecting operating room time compared with pure retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? Journal of Endourology. 2009; 23: 939-943.
34.
DrouinSJ, VaessenC, HupertanV, ComperatE, MisraïV, HaertigA, BitkerMO, Chartier-KastlerE, RichardF, RouprêtM. Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2009; 27: 599-605.
35.
TewariA, SrivasatavaA, MenonM and members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU International. 2003; 92: 205-210.
36.
KrambeckAE, DiMarcoDS, RangelLJ, BergstralhEJ, MyersRP, BluteML, GettmanMT. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU International. 2008; 103: 448-453.
37.
RoccoB, MateiDV, MelegariS, OspinaJC, MazzoleniF, ErricoG, MastropasquaM, SantoroL, DettiS, De CobelliO. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU International. 2009; 104: 991-995.
38.
MurphyDG, KergerM, CroweH, PetersJS, CostelloAJ. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. European Urology. 2009; 55: 1358-1367.
39.
BolenzC, GuptaA, HotzeT, HoR, CadedduJA, RoehrbornCG, LotanY. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. European Urology. 2010; 57: 453-458.
40.
SivaramanA, LeveilleeRJ, PatelMB, ChauhanS, BrachoJE, II, MooreCR, CoelhoRF, PalmerKJ, SchatloffO, BirdVG, MunverR, PatelVR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 2012; 79: 351-355.
BirdVG, LeveilleeRJ, EldefrawyA, BrachoJ, AzizMA. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology. 2011; 77: 730-735.
43.
BernieJE, VenkateshR, BrownJ, GardnerTA, SundaramCP. Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2005; 9: 258-261.
44.
EtafyM, PickD, SaidS, HsuehT, KerblD, MucksavageP, LouieM, McDougallE, ClaymanR. Robotic pyeloplasty: the university of california-irvine experience. The Journal of Urology. 2011; 185: 2196-2200.
45.
UberoiJ, DisickGIS, MunverR. Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. BJU International. 2009; 104: 1722-1729.
46.
GettmanMT, PeschelR, NeururerR, BartschG. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the da Vinci Robotic System versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. European Urology. 2002; 42: 453-458.
47.
SpinoglioG, LentiLM, MaglioneV, LucidoFS, PrioraF, BianchiPP, GrossoF, QuaratiR. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26: 1648-1655.
48.
BoyluU, BasatacC, YildrimU, OnolFF, GumusE. Comparison of surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes of open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. J Minim Access Surg. 2015 Jan-Mar; 11(1): 72-77.
49.
LeeS, OhJ, HongSK, LeeSE, ByunSS. Open versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: effect on clinical outcome. J Endourol. 2011 Jul; 25(7): 1181-5.
50.
OwenB, SimorovA, SirefA, ShostromV, OleynikovD. How does robotic anti-reflux surgery compare with traditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014; 28: 1686-1690.
51.
HeemskerkJ, Van GemertWG, GreveJWM, BouvyND. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic nissen fundoplication: a comparative retrospective study on costs and time consumption. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2007; 17: 1-4.
52.
ParkJS, ChoiGS, ParkSY, KimHJ, RyukJP. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. British Journal of Surgery. 2012; 99: 1219-1226.
53.
LimDR, MinBS, KimMS, AlasariS, KimG, HurH, BaikSH, LeeKY, KimNK. Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc.2013; 27: 1379-1385.
DeutschGB, SathyanarayanaSA, GunabushanamV, MishraN, RubachE, ZemonH, KleinJDS, DeNotoIII G. Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26: 956-963.
56.
CasillasMA, Jr., LeichtleSW, WahlWL, LampmanRM, WelchKB, WellockT, MaddenEB, ClearyRK. Improved perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations. The American Journal of Surgery.2013; 208: 33-40.
57.
NarulaVK, MikamiDJ, MelvinWS. Robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a hybrid approach. Pancreas. 2010; 39: 160-164.
58.
ZhanQ, DengXX, HanB, LiuQ, ShenBY, PengCH, LiHW. Robotic-assisted pancreatic resection: a report of 47 cases. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2013; 9: 44-51.
59.
KangCM, KimDH, LeeWJ, ChiHS. Conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted spleen-preserving pancreatectomy: does da Vinci have clinical advantages? Surg Endosc. 2011; 25: 2004-2009.
Masson-LecomteA, YatesDR, HupertanV, HaertigA, Chartier-KastlerE, BitkerMO, VaessenC, RoupretM. A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2013; 31: 924-929.
62.
SerniS, VittoriG, MasieriL, GacciM, LapiniA, SienaG, VignoliniG, MariA, CariniM, MinerviniA. Robotic vs open simple enucleation for the treatment of t1a-t1b renal cell carcinoma: a single center matched-pair comparison. Urology. 2014; 83: 331-338.
63.
MiyakeH, NobuyukiH, ImaiS, FurukawaJ, TanakaK, FujisawaM. Partial nephrectomy for hilar tumors: comparison of conventional open and robot-assisted approaches. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015; Doi: 10.1007/s10147-015-0783-x.
64.
HamWS, ParkSY, YuHS, CohiYD, HongSJ, RhaKH. Malfunction of da vinci robotic system-disassembled surgeon's console hand piece: case report and review of the literature. Urology. 2009; 73: 209e7-209.e8..
65.
MuesAC, BoxGN, AbazaR. Robotic instrument insulation failure: initial report of a potential source of patient injury. Urology. 2011; 77: 104-108.
66.
ChenCC, OuYC, YangCK, ChiuKY, WangSS, SuCK, HoHC, ChengCL, ChenCS, LeeJR, ChenWM. Malfunction of the da vinci robotic system in urology. International Journal of Urology. 2012; 19: 736-740.
67.
KimWT, HamWS, JeongW, SongHJ, RhaKH, ChoiYD. Failure and malfunction of da vinci surgical systems during various robotic surgeries: experience from six departments at a single institute. Urology. 2009; 74: 1234-1237.
