Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A consensus document on robotic surgery

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. 1.

    Allaf M, Patriciu A, Mazilu D, Kavoussi L, Stoianovici D (2004) Overview and fundamentals of urologic robot-integrated systems. Urol Clin North Am 31:671–682

  2. 2.

    Argenziano M, Katz M, Bonatti J, Srivastava S, Murphy D, Poirier R, Loulmet D, Siwek L, Kreaden U, Ligon D, TECAB Trial Investigators (2006). Results of the prospective multicenter trial of robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1666–1674

  3. 3.

    Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R (2006) Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 49:866–871. Epub 2006 March 10

  4. 4.

    Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215

  5. 5.

    Badani KK, Hemal AK, Fumo M, Kaul S, Shrivastava A, Rajendram AK, Yusoff NA, Sundram M, Woo S, Peabody JO, Mohamed SR, Menon M. (2006) Robotic extended pyelolithotomy for treatment of renal calculi: a feasibility study. World J Urol 24:198–201. Epub 2006 May 16

  6. 6.

    Badani KK, Hemal AK, Peabody JO, Menon M (2006) Robotic radical prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute training experience. World J Urol 24:148–151. Epub 2006 April 11

  7. 7.

    Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 134:87–92. Epub 2005 December 27

  8. 8.

    Bhandari A, McIntire L, Kaul SA, Hemal AK, Peabody JO, Menon M (2005) Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve. J Urol 174:915–918

  9. 9.

    Bodner J, Kafka-Ritsch R, Lucciarini P, Fish JH III, Schmid T (2005) A critical comparison of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic splenectomies. World J Surg 29:982–985

  10. 10.

    Bodner JC, Zitt M, Ott H, Wetscher GJ, Wykypiel H, Lucciarini P, Schmid T (2005) Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) for benign and malignant esophageal tumors. Ann Thorac Surg 80:1202–1206

  11. 11.

    Bodnera J, Augustina F, Wykypiela H, Fisha J, Muehlmanna G, Wetscherb G, Schmida T (2005) The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med Wkly 135:674–678

  12. 12.

    Bonaros N, Schachner T, Oehlinger A, Ruetzler E, Kolbitsch C, Dichtl W, Mueller S, Laufer G, Bonatti J (2006) Robotically assisted totally endoscopic atrial septal defect repair: insights from operative times, learning curves, and clinical outcome. Ann Thorac Surg 82:687–693

  13. 13.

    Bonatti J, Schachner T, Bonaros N, Ohlinger A, Danzmayr M, Jonetzko P, Friedrich G, Kolbitsch C, Mair P, Laufer G (2006) Technical challenges in totally endoscopic robotic coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:146–153

  14. 14.

    Boyd WD, Desai ND, Kiaii B, Rayman R, Menkis AH, McKenzie FN, Novick RJ (2000) A comparison of robot-assisted versus manually constructed endoscopic coronary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 70:839–842

  15. 15.

    Boyd WD, Kiaii B, Kodera K, Rayman R, Abu-Khudair W, Fazel S, Dobkowski WB, Ganapathy S, Jablonsky G, Novick RJ (2002) Early experience with robotically assisted internal thoracic artery harvest. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:52–57

  16. 16.

    Boyd WD, Rayman R, Desai ND, Menkis AH, Dobkowski W, Ganapathy S, Kiaii B, Jablonsky G, McKenzie FN, Novick RJ (2000) Closed-chest coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart with the use of a computer-enhanced surgical robotic system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 120:807–809

  17. 17.

    Challacombe BJ, Khan MS, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2006) The history of robotics in urology. World J Urol 24:120–127. Epub 2006 March 22

  18. 18.

    Chitwood WR Jr, Nifong LW, Chapman WH, Felger JE, Bailey BM, Ballint T, Mendleson KG, Kim VB, Young JA, Albrecht RA (2001) Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg 234:475–484

  19. 19.

    Costi R, Himpens J, Bruyns J, Cadiere GB (2003) Robotic fundoplication: from theoretic advantages to real problems. J Am Coll Surg 197:500–507

  20. 20.

    Dakin GF, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 17:574–579. Epub 2003 February 17

  21. 21.

    Donias HW, Karamanoukian HL, D’Ancona G, Hoover EL (2002) Applying robotic assistance to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 235:446

  22. 22.

    Elliott DS, Chow GK, Gettman M (2006) Current status of robotics in female urology and gynecology. World J Urol 24:188–192. Epub 2006 March 24

  23. 23.

    Elliott DS, Frank I, Dimarco DS, Chow GK (2004) Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Surg 188:52S–56S

  24. 24.

    Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK (2006) Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 176:655–659

  25. 25.

    El-Tabey NA, Shoma AM (2005) Port-site metastases after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. Urology 66:1110

  26. 26.

    Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr (2006) Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 67:360–363

  27. 27.

    Felger JE, Nifong LW, Chitwood WR Jr (2002) The evolution of and early experience with robot-assisted mitral valve surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:58–63

  28. 28.

    Galich A, Sterrett S, Nazemi T, Pohlman G, Smith L, Balaji KC (2006) Comparative analysis of early perioperative outcomes following radical cystectomy by either the robotic or open method. JSLS 10:145–150

  29. 29.

    Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Moser F, Baptista M, Donahue P, Horgan S (2006) Laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia facilitated by robotic assistance. Surg Endosc 20:1105–1112. Epub 2006 May 13

  30. 30.

    Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784

  31. 31.

    Gorodner V, Horgan S, Galvani C, Manzelli A, Oberholzer J, Sankary H, Testa G, Benedetti E (2006) Routine left robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and effective regardless of the presence of vascular anomalies. Transpl Int 19:636–640

  32. 32.

    Hanly EJ, Marohn MR, Bachman SL, Talamini MA, Hacker SO, Howard RS, Schenkman NS (2004) Multiservice laparoscopic surgical training using the daVinci surgical system. Am J Surg 187:309–315

  33. 33.

    Hanly EJ, Miller BE, Kumar R, Hasser CJ, Coste-Maniere E, Talamini MA, Aurora AA, Schenkman NS, Marohn MR (2006) Mentoring console improves collaboration and teaching in surgical robotics. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:445–451

  34. 34.

    Hanly EJ, Talamini MA (2004) Robotic abdominal surgery. Am J Surg 188:19S–26S

  35. 35.

    Hanly EJ, Zand J, Bachman SL, Marohn MR, Talamini MA (2005) Value of the SAGES Learning Center in introducing new technology. Surg Endosc 19:477–483. Epub 2005 February 10

  36. 36.

    Hashizume M, Sugimachi K (2003) Robot-assisted gastric surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83:1429–1444

  37. 37.

    Hashizume M, Tsugawa K (2004) Robotic surgery and cancer: the present state, problems, and future vision. Jpn J Clin Oncol 34:227–237

  38. 38.

    Hayashibe M, Suzuki N, Hattori A, Suzuki S, Konishi K, Kakeji Y, Hashizume M (2005) Surgical robot setup simulation with consistent kinematics and haptics for abdominal surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 111:164–166

  39. 39.

    Hemal AK, Abol-Enein H, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, Ghoneim MA, Menon M (2004) Robotic radical cystectomy and urinary diversion in the management of bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am 31:719–729

  40. 40.

    Hemal AK, Menon M (2002) Laparoscopy, robot, telesurgery, and urology: future perspective. J Postgrad Med 48:39–41

  41. 41.

    Hemal AK, Menon M (2004) Robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol 14:89–93

  42. 42.

    Hockstein NG, O’Malley BW Jr, Weinstein GS (2006) Assessment of intraoperative safety in transoral robotic surgery. Laryngoscope 116:165–168

  43. 43.

    Hockstein NG, Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr (2005) Maintenance of hemostasis in transoral robotic surgery. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 67:220–224. Epub 2005 September 5

  44. 44.

    Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Jacobsen GR, Moser F, Manzelli A, Oberholzer J, Fisichella MP, Bogetti D, Testa G, Sankary HN, Benedetti E (2007) Effect of robotic assistance on the “learning curve” for laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 21:1512–1517. Epub 2007 Febraury 8

  45. 45.

    Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV, Omelanczuck P, Elli F, Moser F, Durand L, Caracoche M, Nefa J, Bustos S, Donahue P, Ferraina P (2005) Robotic-assisted Heller myotomy versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg 9:1020–1029

  46. 46.

    Hourmont K, Chung W, Pereira S, Wasielewski A, Davies R, Ballantyne GH (2003) Robotic versus telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: duration of surgery and outcomes. Surg Clin North Am 83:1445–1462

  47. 47.

    Hubens G, Coveliers H, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Vaneerdeweg W (2003) A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 17:1595–1599. Epub 2003 July 21

  48. 48.

    Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR (2005) Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 96:39–42

  49. 49.

    Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A, Savera A, Shrivastava A, Menon M (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology 66:1261–1265

  50. 50.

    Kernstine KH, DeArmond DT, Karimi M, Van Natta TL, Campos JC, Yoder MR, Everett JE (2004) The robotic, 2–stage, 3-field esophagolymphadenectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 127:1847–1849

  51. 51.

    Kiaii B, McClure RS, Stitt L, Rayman R, Dobkowski WB, Jablonsky G, Novick RJ, Boyd WD (2006) Prospective angiographic comparison of direct, endoscopic, and telesurgical approaches to harvesting the internal thoracic artery. Ann Thorac Surg 82:624–628

  52. 52.

    Kodera K, Kiaii B, Rayman R, Novick RJ, Boyd WD (2001) Closed chest CABG on the beating heart with a computer-enhanced articulating system: case report. Heart Surg Forum 4:305–306

  53. 53.

    Kumar R, Hemal AK, Menon M (2005) Robotic renal and adrenal surgery: present and future. BJU Int 96:244–249

  54. 54.

    Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA (2006) Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. Urology 175:683–687

  55. 55.

    Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT (2004) The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. Urology 172:1431–1435

  56. 56.

    Menkis AH, Kodera K, Kiaii B, Swinamer SA, Rayman R, Boyd WD (2004) Robotic surgery, the first 100 cases: where do we go from here? Heart Surg Forum 7:1–4

  57. 57.

    Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Bhandari A (2004) The technique of apical dissection of the prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis in robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 93:715–719

  58. 58.

    Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, El-Tabey NA, Shaaban A, Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA (2003) Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 92:232–236

  59. 59.

    Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Hemal A (2005) Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire-based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve-sparing and prostatic fascia-sparing techniques. J Urol 174:2291–2296

  60. 60.

    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A (2005) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. Urology 66:101–104

  61. 61.

    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, Vallancien G (2002) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168:945–949

  62. 62.

    Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2002) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60:864–868

  63. 63.

    Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal AK (2004) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1,100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 31:701–717

  64. 64.

    Morgan JA, Thornton BA, Peacock JC, Hollingsworth KW, Smith CR, Oz MC, Argenziano M (2005) Does robotic technology make minimally invasive cardiac surgery too expensive? A hospital cost analysis of robotic and conventional techniques. J Card Surg 20:246–251

  65. 65.

    Muhlmann G, Klaus A, Kirchmayr W, Wykypiel H, Unger A, Holler E, Nehoda H, Aigner F, Weiss HG. (2003) DaVinci robotic-assisted laparoscopic bariatric surgery: is it justified in a routine setting? Obes Surg 13:848–854

  66. 66.

    Nazemi T, Galich A, Smith L, Balaji KC (2006) Robotic urological surgery in patients with prior abdominal operations is not associated with increased complications. Int J Urol 13:248–251

  67. 67.

    Nazemi T, Galich A, Sterrett S, Klingler D, Smith L, Balaji KC (2006) Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand assistance or robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results. Clin Urol 32:15–22

  68. 68.

    Nio D, Balm R, Maartense S, Guijt M, Bemelman WA (2004) The efficacy of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic vascular anastomoses in an experimental model. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 27:283–286

  69. 69.

    Nio D, Bemelman WA, Balm R, Legemate DA (2005) Laparoscopic vascular anastomoses: does robotic (Zeus-Aesop) assistance help to overcome the learning curve? Surg Endosc 19:1071–1076. Epub 2005 May 26

  70. 70.

    Nio D, Bemelman WA, Boer KT, Dunker MS, Gouma DJ, Gulik TM (2002) Efficiency of manual versus robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks. Surg Endosc 16:412–415. Epub 2001 November 16

  71. 71.

    Nio D, Bemelman WA, Busch OR, Vrouenraets BC, Gouma DJ (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Surg Endosc 18:379–382. Epub 2004 January 14

  72. 72.

    Novick RJ, Fox SA, Kiaii BB, Stitt LW, Rayman R, Kodera K, Menkis AH, Boyd WD (2003) Analysis of the learning curve in telerobotic, beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting: a 90-patient experience. Ann Thorac Surg 76:749–753

  73. 73.

    O’Malley BW Jr, Weinstein GS, Hockstein NG (2006) Transoral robotic surgery (TORS): glottic microsurgery in a canine model. J Voice 20:263–268. Epub 2006 February 10

  74. 74.

    O’Malley BW Jr, Weinstein GS, Snyder W, Hockstein NG (2006) Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for base of tongue neoplasms. Laryngoscope 116:1465–1472

  75. 75.

    Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D, Su LM (2006) Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol 49:612–624. Epub 2006 January 18

  76. 76.

    Raychaudhuri B, Khan MS, Challacombe B, Rimington P, Dasgupta P (2006) Minimally invasive radical cystectomy. BJU Int 98:1064–1067

  77. 77.

    Rozet F, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2006) Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 24:171–179. Epub 2006 March 17

  78. 78.

    Sahabudin RM, Arni T, Ashani N, Arumuga K, Rajenthran S, Murali S, Patel V, Hemal A, Menon M. (2006) Development of robotic program: an Asian experience. World J Urol 24:161–164. Epub 2006 April 11

  79. 79.

    Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Peabody J, Menon M. (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 18:63–66

  80. 80.

    Scales CD Jr, Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL, Preminger GM, Albala DM (2005) Local cost structures and the economics of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 174:2323–2329

  81. 81.

    Schachner T, Feuchtner GM, Bonatti J, Bonaros N, Oehlinger A, Gassner E, Pachinger O, Friedrich G. (2007) Evaluation of robotic coronary surgery with intraoperative graft angiography and postoperative multislice computed tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1361–1367

  82. 82.

    Smith WD, Berguer R, Rosser JC Jr (2003) Wireless virtual instrument measurement of surgeons’ physical and mental workloads for robotic versus manual minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 94:318–324

  83. 83.

    Sterrett S, Mammen T, Nazemi T, Galich A, Peters G, Smith L, Balaji KC. (2007) Major urological oncological surgeries can be performed using minimally invasive robotic or laparoscopic methods with similar early perioperative outcomes compared to conventional open methods. World J Urol 25:193–198. Epub 2006 December 15

  84. 84.

    Tewari A, Kaul S, Menon M (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy: a minimally invasive therapy for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 6:45–48

  85. 85.

    Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M, Members of the VIP Team (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92:205–210

  86. 86.

    Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J Urol 174:912–914

  87. 87.

    Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Hockstein NG (2005) Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic laryngectomy in a canine model. Laryngoscope 115:1315–1319

  88. 88.

    Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Snyder W, Hockstein NG (2007) Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 116:19–23

Download references

Acknowledgment

This project was funded in part by a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA). The views and opinions as well as the findings in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other documentation.

Author information

Correspondence to D. M. Herron.

Additional information

The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group: A. Advincula (University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA), S. Aggarwal, M. Palese (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY USA), T. Broderick (University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH USA), I. Broeders (University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan, Netherlands), A. Byer (Hackensack University Medical Center, Wyckoff, NJ, USA), M. Curet (Stanford Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA), D. Earle (Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA), P. Giulianotti (Misericordia Hospital, Grossero, Italy), W. Grundfest (University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA), M. Hashizume (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan), W. Kelley (Henrico Doctors’ Hospital, Richmond, VA, USA), D. Lee, G. Weinstein (Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA), E. McDougall (University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA), J. Meehan (University of Iowa Hospital, Iowa City, IA, USA), S. Melvin (Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA), M. Menon (Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA), D. Oleynikov (Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA), V. Patel MD (Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA), R. Satava (University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA), S. Schwaitzberg (Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA, USA)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Guidelines for Institutions Granting Privileges in Therapeutic Robotic Procedures

Preamble

The International Consensus Group of 2006 of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the Minimally Invasive Robotic Association (MIRA) recommend the following guidelines for privileging qualified surgeons in the performance of surgical procedures using therapeutic robotic surgical devices alone or in a hybrid fashion. The basic premise is that the surgeon must have the judgment and training for safe completion of the procedure as intended, as well as the capability of immediately proceeding to an alternative therapy when circumstances so indicate.

I. Principles of Privileging

A. Purpose

The purpose of this statement is to outline principles and provide practical suggestions to assist healthcare institutions when granting privileges for the performance of procedures using these technologies. In conjunction with the guidelines of other organizations for granting hospital privileges, implementation of these methods should help hospital staffs ensure that surgery is performed in a manner that ensures high-quality patient care and proper procedure utilization.

B. Uniformity of Standards

Uniform standards should be developed that apply to all medical staff requesting privileges to perform procedures using these technologies. Criteria must be established that are medically sound but not unreasonably stringent, and that are universally applicable to all those wishing to obtain privileges. The goal must be the delivery of high-quality patient care. Surgical proficiency should be assessed for every surgeon, and privileges should not be granted or denied solely based on the number of procedures performed. Ongoing review of results and comparison with published data and/or recognized benchmarks are encouraged.

C. Responsibility for Privileging

The privileging structure and process remain the responsibility of the institution at which privileges are being sought. It should be the responsibility of the specialty department, through its chief, to recommend privileges for individual surgeons to perform procedures. These recommendations should then be approved by the appropriate institutional committee, board, or governing body.

D. Definitions

Must/shall: Mandatory recommendation

Should: Highly desirable recommendation

May/could: Optional recommendation; alternatives may be appropriate

Documented training and experience:

  1. 1.

    Case list specifying the applicant’s role (primary surgeon, co-surgeon, first assistant, chief resident, junior resident, or observer). Complications, outcomes, and conversion to traditional techniques should be included if known. The applicant must specify if these details are not known.

  2. 2.

    Summary letter from preceptor and/or program director and/or chief of service (should state whether applicant can independently and competently perform the procedure in question).

Privileging: The process whereby a specific scope and content of patient care services (i.e., clinical privileges) are authorized for a health care practitioner by a health care organization based on evaluation of the individual’s credentials and performance.

Competence or competency: A determination of an individual’s capability to perform up to defined expectations.

Credentials: Documented evidence of licensure, education, training, experience, or other qualifications.

Complete procedural performance: Competency of the applicant and/or institution regarding patient selection, periprocedural care, performance of the operation, technical skill and equipment necessary for safe completion of a procedure, and the ability to proceed immediately with the traditional open procedure.

Formal course: A formal course alone is not appropriate training for beginning to perform a procedure independently. The course should be taught by instructors with appropriate clinical experience, and should have a curriculum that includes didactic instruction as well as hands-on experience using inanimate and/or animate models. The course director and/or instructor should provide a written assessment of the participant’s mastery of course objectives. Documentation for certain courses comprising only didactic instruction may consist of verification of attendance.

Therapeutic robotic procedures: The spectrum of procedures using a human-controlled computer-assisted electromechanical system that converts information to targeted therapeutic action.

II. Minimum Requirements for Granting Privileges

Part IIA is mandatory, and must be accompanied by either part I B or IIC and at least one component of IID.

A. Formal Specialty Training

Prerequisite training must include satisfactory completion of an accredited surgical residency program, with subsequent certification by the applicable specialty board or an equivalent as required by the institution.

B. Formal Training in Residency and/or Fellowship Programs

This training is for surgeons who have successfully completed a residency and/or fellowship program that incorporated a structured curriculum in minimal access procedures and therapeutic robotic devices and their use. This should also include the science and the techniques of access to the body cavity and area of surgery. This includes adequate clinical experience. The applicant’s program director and, if desired, other faculty members should supply the appropriate documentation of training and clinical experience.

C. No Formal Residency Training in Therapeutic Robotic Surgery

For those surgeons without residency and/or fellowship training that included structured experience in therapeutic robotic procedures, or without documented prior experience in these areas, a structured training curriculum is required. The curriculum should be defined by the institution, and should include a structured program. The curriculum should include didactic education on the specific technology and an educational program for the specialty-specific approach to the organ systems. If the access involves an intracavitary procedure, then that experience and education should be a prerequisite to the training. Hands-on training, which includes experience with the device in a dry lab environment as well as a specialty-specific model that may include animate, cadaveric, and/or virtual reality and simulation modeling, is necessary. Observation of live case(s) should be considered mandatory as well. Other teaching aids may include video review and interactive computer programs.

D. Practical Experience

  1. 1.

    Applicant’s Experience: Documented experience must include an appropriate volume of cases with satisfactory outcomes, equivalent to the procedure in question in terms of complexity. The chief of service should determine the appropriateness of this experience.

  2. 2.

    Initial clinical experience with the specific procedure must be undertaken under the review of an expert and may include assisting. An adequate number of cases to allow proficient completion of the procedure should be performed with this expert review.

  3. 3.

    Preceptor or Proctor: The specific role and qualifications of the expert must be determined by the institution. Criteria of competency for each procedure should be established in advance and should include evaluation of familiarity with instrumentation and equipment, competence in their use, appropriateness of patient selection, clarity of dissection, safety, and successful completion of the procedure. The criteria should be established by the chief of service in conjunction with the specific-specialty chief where appropriate. It is essential that mentoring be provided in an unbiased, confidential, and objective manner.

E. Formal Assessment of Competency

When available, validated measures of competency should be used for further documentation of the applicant’s abilities. These may include knowledge, medical decision making, and/or technical skill assessments. This step may include certificates of completion of training or validated assessment tools for competency or proficiency in a specific procedure or set of similar procedures.

III. Institutional Support

It is necessary that the staff and technical support team undergo a similar formal technical training with the device before its use in a clinical scenario. Therapeutic robotic surgery requires technical support and must be approached with a team concept.

IV. Maintenance of Privileges

A. Provisional Privileges

Once competence has been determined, a period of provisional privileges may be appropriate. The time frame and/or number of cases during this period should be determined by the chief of service and/or the appropriate institutional committee, board, or governing body.

B. Monitoring of Performance

Once privileges have been granted, performance should be monitored through existing quality assurance mechanisms at the institution. These mechanisms may be modified as appropriate, and should evaluate outcomes as well as competency in the complete patient care process.

C. Continuing Medical Education

Continuing medical education related to the field should be required as part of the periodic renewal of privileges. Attendance at appropriate local, national, or international meetings and courses is encouraged.

D. Renewal

An appropriate level of continuing clinical activity should be required. This should include review of quality assurance data, as well as appropriate continuing medical education activity, in addition to existing mechanisms at the institution designed for this purpose.

E. Denial of Privileges

Institutions denying, withdrawing, or restricting privileges should have an appropriate mechanism for appeal in place. The procedural details of this mechanism should be developed by the institution, and must satisfy the institution’s bylaws and institutional recommendations.

Appendix 2. Guidelines for Training in Therapeutic Robotic Procedures

Purpose

To define guidelines for practical education in therapeutic robotics and its application to surgical specialties. A defined course should provide the necessary information, skill training, and familiarization with the technology for the initiation of a mentored clinical experience. The completion of a course should be considered only as preparation for the performance of a mentored clinical experience as determined by individual institutions

Expert Instructor

Instructors must have substantial practical experience with the specific advanced technology and must have used this technology in clinical applications with reported results and review. The individuals should have specialty-specific experience and expertise in the advanced technology.

Didactics

The length of this portion of the educational experience should reflect the complexity of the technology and the specialty-specific procedure, the underlying experience of the students, and the incremental increase in the procedure and technology. This should allow a complete understanding of the technology, device function, altered functional status, basic troubleshooting, other technical issues, and device parameters and limitations. Technology and team interactions should be addressed as well.

Procedure-specific information should include indications, workup patient selection, instrumentation, preoperative preparation, patient and system positioning, port placement, procedural steps, complications, and management. Learning curve–related issues should be presented. Reported outcomes and the expected perioperative course should be included.

Live Case Observation

The observation of a complete procedure is an important part of a total preclinical training program. The experience should include procedure preparation, system setup, patient positioning, review of case selection, and intraoperative technical aspects.

Hands-on Experience

Hands-on experience should include nonclinical simulation encompassing system setup, connections, operation, and troubleshooting. Initial skill training should include basic and advanced techniques required to develop adequate proficiency necessary for completion of the intended procedure. Clinical simulation should include procedure-specific modeling with successful completion of the key components using an appropriate model for the expected procedures. It is recommended that advanced simulation tools be used when available. The complexity of the procedure may dictate the length of the time necessary to complete the tasks.

Residency Programs

It is recommended that specialty training programs include exposure to therapeutic robotic interventions as part of their curriculum. A structured curriculum on therapeutic robotic procedures should be included in programs providing clinical experience for their trainees.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herron, D.M., Marohn, M. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22, 313–325 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9727-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robotic System
  • Choledochal Cyst
  • Haptic Feedback
  • Heller Myotomy
  • Robotic Device