Robotic surgery using Senhance® robotic platform: single center experience with first 100 cases
Until recently, robotic surgery has been associated only with the da Vinci robotic system. A novel Senhance® robotic system (TransEnterix Surgical Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA) was introduced almost 5 years ago. Published reports on experience using this robotic platform are very limited. We present a prospective analysis of the first 100 robotic surgeries in abdominal surgery, gynecology, and urology in Klaipeda University Hospital, Klaipeda, Lithuania. Out of 100 operated patients during the mentioned period, 49 were female and 51 men, age range 27–79 years, on an average 55 years. 39 underwent robotic abdominal surgical procedures, 31—urological, and 30 gynecological surgeries. Duration of surgery varied from 30 min to 6 h and 5 min, on an average 2 h 25 min. Almost half 49 (49%) were operated on for malignant diseases: prostate cancer—27, renal cell carcinoma—1, endometrial cancer—7, ovarian cancer—1, colorectal cancer—13 (7 colon and 6 rectum). In-hospital stay was on an average 4 days, range 1–15 days. There were 3 (3%) conversions: two to laparoscopy (both undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy) and one to open (undergoing total hysterectomy). 6 (6%) complications occurred during 30 postoperative days, 2 demanding surgery. According to the Clavien–Dido classification, they were grade II in 3, grade III a in 1 and grade III b in 2 cases. There was no mortality in this patient population. Our experience with different types of robotic surgeries allows us to state that the Senhance® robotic system is feasible and safe in general surgery, gynecology, and urology, and wider implementation of this system worldwide is simply a question of time.
KeywordsRobotic surgery Minimally invasive surgery Senhance robotic system
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
NE. Samalavicius, V. Janusonis, R. Siaulys,M. Jasenas, O. Deduchovas,, R. Venckus,, V. Ezerskiene, R. Paskeviciute, G. Klimaviciute, have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed were in accordance with ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, revised in 2000.
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in this study.
- 1.RUR, Copek K (1921). Dover Publication Inc. MineolaGoogle Scholar
- 2.Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25:1467–1477Google Scholar
- 4.Gidaro S, Buscarini M, Ruiz E et al (2012) Telelap Alf-X: a novel telesurgical system for the 21st century. Surg Technol Int 22:20–25Google Scholar
- 11.Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L et al (2012) Systematic review and economic modeling of the relative clinical benefit and cost—effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 16(41):1–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L et al (2013) Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a Health Technology Assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol 64(3):631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Hutchins AR, Manson RJ, Lerebours R, Farjat AE, Cox ML, Mann BP, Zani S Jr (2019) Objective assessment of the early stages of the learning curve for the senhance surgical robotic system. J Surg Educ. 76(1):201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.026 (Epub 2018 Aug 8 PMID: 30098933) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Gueli Alletti S, Rossitto C, Cianci S, Restaino S, Costantini B, Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Cosentino F, Scambia G (2016) Telelap ALF-X vs standard laparoscopy for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer: a single-institution retrospective cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(3):378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Samalavicius NE, Smolskas E, Deduchovas O, Janusonis V, Dulskas A (2019) Robotic abdominoperineal resection for pT2N0M0 low rectal cancer using the Senhance TransEnterix robotic platform—a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14638 [Epub ahead of print] No abstract available PMID:30977276 Google Scholar
- 27.Armijo PR, Pagkratis S, Boilesen E, Tanner T, Oleynikov D (2018) Growth in robotic-assisted procedures is from conversion of laparoscopic procedures and not from open surgeons’ conversion: a study of trends and costs. Surg Endosc 32(4):2106–2113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5908-z (Epub 2017 Oct 24) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Falavolti C, Gidaro S, Ruiz E, Altobelli E, Stark M, Ravasio G, Lazzaretti SS, Buscarini M (2014) Experimental nephrectomies using a novel telesurgical system: (The Telelap ALF-X)—a pilot study. Surg Technol Int 25:37–41Google Scholar
- 29.Gidaro S, Altobelli E, Falavolti C, Bove AM, Ruiz EM, Stark M, Ravasio G, Lazzaretti SS, Maurizio B (2014) Vesicourethral anastomosis using a novel telesurgical system with haptic sensation, the Telelap Alf-X: a pilot study. Surg Technol Int 24:35–40 PMID:24706079 Google Scholar