dr. andrew vorenberg. intuitive surgical- case observation site and proctor
TRANSCRIPT
ROBOTIC SURGERY… THE FUTURE IS HERE
Dr. Andrew Vorenberg
Disclosures
Intuitive Surgical- case observation site and proctor
Improved
cosmesisFrustrati
onOutcome
s
Cost
Ergonomics
Known entity
PROS CONS
Adopting Robotics
Back in time
Open surgery
Laparoscopy
Along came Laparoscopy
The adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a national survey of general surgeons
28-item questionnaire to all general surgeon members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Response rate 55% (694/1266) 67% perform colorectal surgery
54% of these perform laparoscopic colorectal surgery Positive predictive factors:
years in practice (p < 0.001) male sex (p = 0.015) practicing in the province of Quebec (p = 0.005) university-hospital affiliation (p = 0.034) minimally invasive surgery fellowship training (p = 0.023) ***Lack of adequate operating time and formal training were
the main reasons cited by surgeons not offering laparoscopic colon resections
Moloo et al. Can J Surg 2009
Robotics vs. Laparoscopy
PROS CONS More cosmetic
incisions Brings back 3D
visualization Articulated
instruments Bring the “open”
feeling back to surgery
Learning curve Longer operative
times Loss of tactile
sensation Initial financial
investment
How did we get here?
TOOLS
EVOLUTION
Surgical tool evolution
Traditional Laparoscopy
PROS CONS More cosmetic
incisions Small graspers
replace hands Better
visualization in “hard to see” places
Learning curve Longer operative
times Loss of tactile
sensation
Electrosurgery
Stapling technology
MACHINES
Notable changes in my approach
Intracorporeal anastomosis
Assure blood supply
No hand-manipulation
Population Complication Rate
ConversionRate
LOS (days)
CRM Positive Margin
Baik SH (2009) 56 5.4% 0.0% 5.7 7.1%Bianchi (2010) 25 16.0% 0.0% 6.5 0.0%Park (2010) 52 19.2% 0.0% 10.4 1.9%Patriti (2009) 29 30.6% 0.0% 11.9 0.0%Pigazzi (2010) 41 22.0% 7.3% 6.5 2.4%Choi GS (2010) 41 29.3% 0.0% 9.9 4.9%Pigazzi (2007) 39 12.8% 2.6% 4.0 0.0%Pigazzi, Luca (2010) 143 24.0% 4.9% 8.3 0.7%Kim SH (2009) 50 18.0% 0.0% 9.2 2.0%Prasad LM (2010) 51 22.0% 3.9% 6.5 0.0%
Robotic 527 20.2% 2.5% 7.9 1.9%
Population Complication Rate
ConversionRate
LOS (days)
CRM Positive Margin
Laparoscopy 242 32.0% 34.0% 10.0 16.0%
Open 132 37.0% N/A 13.0 14.0%
PN
87
43
86
Rev C
06
/12
Where on the curve is da Vinci Surgery for Colorectal Procedure?
Market Penetration
Emergence Adoption Standard of CareTime
Low
High
dVP• #1 treatment option for
prostate cancer1
Colorectal & GS
• New, developing area for robotic surgery• Thought leaders are gravitating to the System• Opportunity to be a first mover in this area
Benign GYN
• Rapid adoption for complex anatomy
• Rapid adoption by GYO’s across the US • Highly attractive to recent fellows
GYN - ONC
PN
87
43
86
Rev C
06
/12
1 http://www.tucc.com/Robotic-Surgery-Most-Common-for-Prostate-Cancer-in-the-US.29.405.html
Pushing the envelope
Is this procedure going to help my patient
Is this procedure going to improve care and outcomes
Would I want this procedure performed on my friends and family?