Robot-assisted single-site compared with laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Lukasz Filip Grochola, Christopher Soll, Adrian Zehnder, Roland Wyss, Pascal Herzog, Stefan Breitenstein, Lukasz Filip Grochola, Christopher Soll, Adrian Zehnder, Roland Wyss, Pascal Herzog, Stefan Breitenstein

Abstract

Background: Recent advances in robotic technology suggest that the utilization of the da Vinci Single-Site™ platform for cholecystectomy is safe, feasible and results in a shorter learning curve compared to conventional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Moreover, the robot-assisted technology has been shown to reduce the surgeon's stress load compared to standard single-incision laparoscopy in an experimental setup, suggesting an important advantage of the da Vinci platform. However, the above-mentioned observations are based solely on case series, case reports and experimental data, as high-quality clinical trials to demonstrate the benefits of the da Vinci Single-Site™ cholecystectomy have not been performed to date.

Methods: This study addresses the question whether robot-assisted Single-Site™ cholecystectomy provides significant benefits over single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of surgeon's stress load, while matching the standards of the conventional single-incision approach with regard to peri- and postoperative outcomes. It is designed as a single centre, single-blinded randomized controlled trial, which compares both surgical approaches with the primary endpoint surgeon's physical and mental stress load at the time of surgery. In addition, the study aims to assess secondary endpoints such as operating time, conversion rates, additional trocar placement, intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, costs of procedure, health-related quality of life, cosmesis and complications. Patients as well as ward staff are blinded until the 1st postoperative year. Sample size calculation based on the results of a previously published experimental setup utilizing an estimated effect size of surgeon's comfort of 0.8 (power of 0.8, alpha-error level of 0.05, error margin of 10-15%) resulted in a number of 30 randomized patients per arm.

Discussion: The study is the first randomized controlled trial that compares the da Vinci Single Site™ platform to conventional laparoscopic approaches in cholecystectomy, one of the most frequently performed operations in general surgery.

Trial registration: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (trial number: NCT02485392 ). Registered February 19, 2015.

Keywords: Cholecystectomy; Robot-assisted laparoscopy; Single Site; Single incision; Stress load; Surgeon’s Comfort; da Vinci.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Local Experienced Discomfort (LED) Questionnaire visual analogue scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Subjective Mental Effort Questionnaire (SMEQ) visual analogue scale
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Study flowchart

References

    1. Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, Gorodner V, Ayloo SM, Elli EF, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. Perioperative risk assessment in robotic general surgery: lessons learned from 884 cases at a single institution. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):701–708. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.496.
    1. Konstantinidis KM, Hirides P, Hirides S, Chrysocheris P, Georgiou M. Cholecystectomy using a novel Single-Site((R)) robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2687–2694. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2227-2.
    1. Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L, Badessi F, Pugliese L, Vinci A, Klersy C, Spinoglio G. Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):709–714. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.508.
    1. Zhong X, Rui YY, Zhou ZG. Laparoendoscopic single-site versus traditional laparoscopic surgery in patients with cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(5):449–455. doi: 10.1089/lap.2011.0521.
    1. Steinemann DC, Raptis DA, Lurje G, Oberkofler CE, Wyss R, Zehnder A, Lesurtel M, Vonlanthen R, Clavien PA, Breitenstein S. Cosmesis and body image after single-port laparoscopic or conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double blinded randomised controlled trial (SPOCC-trial) BMC Surg. 2011;11:24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-11-24.
    1. Lurje G, Raptis DA, Steinemann DC, Amygdalos I, Kambakamba P, Petrowsky H, Lesurtel M, Zehnder A, Wyss R, Clavien PA, et al. Cosmesis and body image in patients undergoing single-port versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double-blinded randomized controlled trial (SPOCC-trial) Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):728–735. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001474.
    1. van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IA. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1365–1371. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0184-6.
    1. Szeto GP, Ho P, Ting AC, Poon JT, Tsang RC, Cheng SW. A study of surgeons’ postural muscle activity during open, laparoscopic, and endovascular surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1712–1721. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0834-3.
    1. Lee J, Kang SW, Jung JJ, Choi UJ, Yun JH, Nam KH, Soh EY, Chung WY. Multicenter study of robotic thyroidectomy: short-term postoperative outcomes and surgeon ergonomic considerations. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2538–2547. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1628-0.
    1. Mirbod SM, Yoshida H, Miyamoto K, Miyashita K, Inaba R, Iwata H. Subjective complaints in orthopedists and general surgeons. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1995;67(3):179–186.
    1. Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1999;13(5):466–468. doi: 10.1007/PL00009635.
    1. Albayrak A, van Veelen MA, Prins JF, Snijders CJ, de Ridder H, Kazemier G. A newly designed ergonomic body support for surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(10):1835–1840. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9249-1.
    1. Bagrodia A, Raman JD. Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol. 2009;23(4):627–633. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0556.
    1. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, Russell T, Dyrbye L, Satele D, Collicott P, Novotny PJ, Sloan J, Freischlag J. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251(6):995–1000. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bfdab3.
    1. Corlett EN, Bishop RP. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 1976;19(2):175–182. doi: 10.1080/00140137608931530.
    1. Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ure BM, Schmulling C, Neugebauer E, Troidl H. Gastrointestinal quality of life index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg. 1995;82(2):216–222. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800820229.
    1. Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman WA. Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(11):1334–1340. doi: 10.1007/s004649900851.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren