Background Several studies about surgical benefits and differences between da Vinci Si and Xi surgical systems are reported in literature. However, there are no studies analyzing the influence of proficiency-gain curve on costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of learning curve on surgical outcomes and costs in robot assisted colorectal surgery for rectal cancer. Methods From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed at our Institute with the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME), or with the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME), since January 2016. Based on CUSUM analysis 80 cases were selected and divided in two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and Xi-RobTME respectively. The costs of the two procedures were analyzed according to the robotic proficiency-gain curve. Results The CUSUM proficiency-gain curves of the two groups were identical, and were divided into two phases: Si1 and Xi1 (cases 1–19) and Si2 and Xi2 (cases 20–40). No differences in the preoperative data, surgical procedure and pathological data were documented. A hybrid laparoscopic/robotic approach was used in 17 cases (42,5%) in the Si-RobTME group while all the procedures of the Xi-RobTME group were completed with a full robotic approach (p <0.001). Overall median operative time (OT) was significantly lower in Xi-RobTME than in Si-RobTME (275 vs 312.5 min, p = 0.021). The OT resulted significantly lower in late phases, Si2 and Xi2, according with robotic learning curve progression (p<0.001), and in phase Xi2 than in phase Si2 (265 vs 290 min, p=0.052) with a reduction of personnel costs (1151.6 vs 1260.2, p=0.052). Statistically significant reduction in overall variable costs (OVC) and consumable costs (CC) were found comparing early and late robotic phases (p < 0.001). Xi2 phase costs resulted lower than Si2 phase costs (OVC: 7983 vs 10231.9, p=0.009, CC: 3464.4 vs 3869.7, p<0.001). Conclusions The similar proficiency-gain curves for both groups were likely related mainly to the use of a new robotic technology, and not to the surgical operation itself. In fact, facing the new technology of Xi system, the surgeon has to deal with new trocar placements, robotic cart position, new functions (pointing, targeting, camera hopping, etc.), new docking system and different robotic arms regulation. Nevertheless, a significant optimization of costs was found with the increased surgeon’s experience, and shifting from old to new technology as well. We reported a significant optimization of costs due to the shorter OT and the related reduction of personnel costs and CC because of the higher percentage of full robotic approach performed with the da Vinci Xi system.

PROFICIENCY-GAIN CURVE AND COSTS ANALYSIS IN ROBOTIC RECTAL RESECTION WITH TME FOR CANCER: A COMPARISON BETWEEN DA VINCI SI AND XI SURGICAL SYSTEMS

Palmeri M;Di Franco G;Furbetta N;Guadagni S;Gianardi D;Bianchini M;Stefanini G;Rossi L;D’Isidoro C;Di Candio G;Mosca F;Morelli L
2018

Abstract

Background Several studies about surgical benefits and differences between da Vinci Si and Xi surgical systems are reported in literature. However, there are no studies analyzing the influence of proficiency-gain curve on costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of learning curve on surgical outcomes and costs in robot assisted colorectal surgery for rectal cancer. Methods From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed at our Institute with the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME), or with the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME), since January 2016. Based on CUSUM analysis 80 cases were selected and divided in two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and Xi-RobTME respectively. The costs of the two procedures were analyzed according to the robotic proficiency-gain curve. Results The CUSUM proficiency-gain curves of the two groups were identical, and were divided into two phases: Si1 and Xi1 (cases 1–19) and Si2 and Xi2 (cases 20–40). No differences in the preoperative data, surgical procedure and pathological data were documented. A hybrid laparoscopic/robotic approach was used in 17 cases (42,5%) in the Si-RobTME group while all the procedures of the Xi-RobTME group were completed with a full robotic approach (p <0.001). Overall median operative time (OT) was significantly lower in Xi-RobTME than in Si-RobTME (275 vs 312.5 min, p = 0.021). The OT resulted significantly lower in late phases, Si2 and Xi2, according with robotic learning curve progression (p<0.001), and in phase Xi2 than in phase Si2 (265 vs 290 min, p=0.052) with a reduction of personnel costs (1151.6 vs 1260.2, p=0.052). Statistically significant reduction in overall variable costs (OVC) and consumable costs (CC) were found comparing early and late robotic phases (p < 0.001). Xi2 phase costs resulted lower than Si2 phase costs (OVC: 7983 vs 10231.9, p=0.009, CC: 3464.4 vs 3869.7, p<0.001). Conclusions The similar proficiency-gain curves for both groups were likely related mainly to the use of a new robotic technology, and not to the surgical operation itself. In fact, facing the new technology of Xi system, the surgeon has to deal with new trocar placements, robotic cart position, new functions (pointing, targeting, camera hopping, etc.), new docking system and different robotic arms regulation. Nevertheless, a significant optimization of costs was found with the increased surgeon’s experience, and shifting from old to new technology as well. We reported a significant optimization of costs due to the shorter OT and the related reduction of personnel costs and CC because of the higher percentage of full robotic approach performed with the da Vinci Xi system.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11568/936894
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact