10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The rapid adoption of robotics within minimally invasive surgical specialties has also seen an explosion of new technology including multi- and single port, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), endoluminal and “on-demand” platforms. This review aims to evaluate the validation status of current and emerging MIS robotic platforms, using the IDEAL Framework.

          Methods

          A scoping review exploring robotic minimally invasive surgical devices, technology and systems in use or being developed was performed, including general surgery, gynaecology, urology and cardiothoracics. Systems operating purely outside the abdomen or thorax and endoluminal or natural orifice platforms were excluded. PubMed, Google Scholar, journal reports and information from the public domain were collected. Each company was approached via email for a virtual interview to discover more about the systems and to quality check data. The IDEAL Framework is an internationally accepted tool to evaluate novel surgical technology, consisting of four stages: idea, development/exploration, assessment, and surveillance. An IDEAL stage, synonymous with validation status in this review, was assigned by reviewing the published literature.

          Results

          21 companies with 23 different robotic platforms were identified for data collection, 13 with national and/or international regulatory approval. Of the 17 multiport systems, 1 is fully evaluated at stage 4, 2 are stage 3, 6 stage 2b, 2 at stage 2a, 2 stage 1, and 4 at the pre-IDEAL stage 0. Of the 6 single-port systems none have been fully evaluated with 1 at stage 3, 3 at stage 1 and 2 at stage 0.

          Conclusions

          The majority of existing robotic platforms are currently at the preclinical to developmental and exploratory stage of evaluation. Using the IDEAL framework will ensure that emerging robotic platforms are fully evaluated with long-term data, to inform the surgical workforce and ensure patient safety.

          Graphical abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures

          This cohort study characterizes trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Adverse Events in Robotic Surgery: A Retrospective Study of 14 Years of FDA Data

            Understanding the causes and patient impacts of surgical adverse events will help improve systems and operational practices to avoid incidents in the future. We analyzed the adverse events data related to robotic systems and instruments used in minimally invasive surgery, reported to the U.S. FDA MAUDE database from January 2000 to December 2013. We determined the number of events reported per procedure and per surgical specialty, the most common types of device malfunctions and their impact on patients, and the causes for catastrophic events such as major complications, patient injuries, and deaths. During the study period, 144 deaths (1.4% of the 10,624 reports), 1,391 patient injuries (13.1%), and 8,061 device malfunctions (75.9%) were reported. The numbers of injury and death events per procedure have stayed relatively constant since 2007 (mean = 83.4, 95% CI, 74.2-92.7). Surgical specialties, for which robots are extensively used, such as gynecology and urology, had lower number of injuries, deaths, and conversions per procedure than more complex surgeries, such as cardiothoracic and head and neck (106.3 vs. 232.9, Risk Ratio = 2.2, 95% CI, 1.9-2.6). Device and instrument malfunctions, such as falling of burnt/broken pieces of instruments into the patient (14.7%), electrical arcing of instruments (10.5%), unintended operation of instruments (8.6%), system errors (5%), and video/imaging problems (2.6%), constituted a major part of the reports. Device malfunctions impacted patients in terms of injuries or procedure interruptions. In 1,104 (10.4%) of the events, the procedure was interrupted to restart the system (3.1%), to convert the procedure to non-robotic techniques (7.3%), or to reschedule it to a later time (2.5%). Adoption of advanced techniques in design and operation of robotic surgical systems may reduce these preventable incidents in the future.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Utilizing Machine Learning and Automated Performance Metrics to Evaluate Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performance and Predict Outcomes

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                n.francis@griffininstitute.org.uk
                Journal
                Surg Endosc
                Surg Endosc
                Surgical Endoscopy
                Springer US (New York )
                0930-2794
                1432-2218
                20 December 2023
                20 December 2023
                2024
                : 38
                : 2
                : 554-585
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Griffin Institute, Northwick Park and St Marks Hospital, ( https://ror.org/05am5g719) London, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.83440.3b, ISNI 0000000121901201, Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Intervention and Surgical Sciences, , University College London, ; London, UK
                [3 ]Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI) Academy, London, UK
                [4 ]University College London, ( https://ror.org/02jx3x895) London, UK
                [5 ]Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, ( https://ror.org/04mw34986) Gloucester, UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.412570.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0400 5079, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, ; Coventry, UK
                [7 ]Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, ( https://ror.org/048tbm396) Turin, Italy
                [8 ]Yeovil District Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, ( https://ror.org/05dvbq272) Yeovil, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8498-9175
                Article
                10554
                10.1007/s00464-023-10554-4
                10830826
                38123746
                be70f6b7-2c79-47bc-8b59-f790a0f44664
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 29 June 2023
                : 20 October 2023
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Surgery
                robotics,evaluation,validation,device,innovation
                Surgery
                robotics, evaluation, validation, device, innovation

                Comments

                Comment on this article