The da Vinci SP surgical robotics system. | Source: Intuitive Surgical
Intuitive Surgical last week shared findings from a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes across a number of robotic surgical procedures.
The peer-reviewed Annals of Surgery published a meta-analysis of 30-day surgical outcomes across seven oncological surgical procedures. It compared robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgical approaches, covering a 12-year timeframe. Investigators analyzed 230 studies from 22 countries, 34 randomized controlled trials, 74 prospective studies, and 122 database reviews.
Each surgical approach analyzed represented more than 1 million procedures.
Scientists from Intuitive and Massachusetts General Hospital conducted the meta-analysis. They say it demonstrated multiple benefits for robotic surgery using the company‘s da Vinci surgical robot compared with laparoscopy and open surgery.
“Robotic surgery with da Vinci showed fewer conversions, less blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, fewer readmissions and reoperations, and a shorter length of stay after 30 days,” stated Dr. Myriam Curet, executive vice president and chief medical officer of Intuitive.
“The editors at the Annals of Surgery thoroughly scrutinized and peer-reviewed this study prior to acceptance,” she added. “The quality of scientific data we are seeing after decades of robotic surgery underscores the value that the da Vinci robotic approach continues to have for improved surgical care.”
Intuitive says data shows advantages of robotic procedures
Intuitive Surgical said the analysis found that da Vinci cases proved 56% less likely to convert to open surgery versus laparoscopy. Those cases also saw less blood loss compared to open surgery and comparable blood loss with laparoscopy.
The study also found that da Vinci cases were 21% less likely to require blood transfusions versus laparoscopy and 75% versus open surgery. They were 10% and 44% less likely to experience 30-day post-operative complications in comparison with laparoscopy and open, respectively.
Intuitive said its robot-assisted cases saw a half-day savings in hospital stay compared with laparoscopy and 1.9 days compared with open surgery. Operative time for da Vinci came in 17.7 minutes longer than laparoscopy and 40.9 minutes longer than open.
The study did not review oncologic outcomes.
Intuitive said previous studies compare perioperative outcomes between these types of surgeries. However, they focused on individual procedures, resulting in procedure-specific evaluations.
This study looked at multiple trials, cohorts, and databases over a 12-year period, Intuitive noted. It focused on 30-day outcomes specific to oncology procedures that often require deep and narrow surgical access.
“The data presented in our study describes the value of robotics in both the controlled clinical setting of randomized controlled trials and in the ‘real-clinical-world’ of population-based studies,” said Rocco Ricciardi, M.D., MPH, lead study author and chief of colon and rectal surgery at the Massachusetts General Hospital. “Ultimately, demonstrating population-based gains with robotics allows us to determine value of robotic procedures for the average person who might need surgery.”
Editor’s note: This article was syndicated from The Robot Report sibling site MassDevice.
As a researcher in AI and Robotics, I have been an enthusiastic follower of news about robotic surgery. When I needed cardiac bypass surgery, I was disappointed that the details of my situation required manual, open-chest surgery. However, my surgeon (also a fan of robotic surgery) told me that outcomes are strongly related to the shortness of the time taken by the surgery. He was quite pleased that my surgery had taken 25 minutes, and I have done very well. The difference in operative time is buried in paragraph 9 of this article, and its medical significance is not discussed. It seems that there is an important trade-off here, that Robot Report should understand and report.