OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
World journal of surgery
Mar 23, 2025;

Implementation of a Robotic Surgical Program With the Dexter Robotic Surgery System: Initial Experiences in Cholecystectomy.

Anne-Sophie Hotz, Nico Seeger, Lukas Gantner, Felix Grieder, Stefan Breitenstein
Author Information
  1. Anne-Sophie Hotz: Department of Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
  2. Nico Seeger: Department of Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
  3. Lukas Gantner: Department of Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
  4. Felix Grieder: Department of Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland.
  5. Stefan Breitenstein: Department of Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland. ORCID
PMID: 40122784 DOI: 10.1002/wjs.12531

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of surgical robots in minimally invasive visceral surgery is increasing, with new platforms like the Dexter Robotic System. This study evaluated the implementation of Dexter in a general visceral surgery department, focusing on safety, performance, and surgeon stress in elective cholecystectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three surgeons with varying laparoscopic and robotic experience performed robotic cholecystectomies with Dexter between December 2022 and June 2024. Perioperative outcomes and safety data were collected until 30 days post-surgery. Surgeons' stress load and physical discomfort were assessed using validated questionnaires (SMEQ, STAI, and LED).
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients underwent elective gallbladder removal. Median age was 52 years (range 27-85) and BMI 26.3 kg/m (range 18.3-41.2). All surgeries were completed robotically without conversion to open surgery. There were no intraoperative complications or device deficiencies. Two cases were converted to laparoscopy due to patient anatomy and a liver tumor discovery. One postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo grade 3A) involved choledocholithiasis requiring ERCP. Median total operating time, docking time, and console use time were 60 min (IQR 50-78), 5 min (IQR 4-7), and 23 min (IQR 19-34), respectively. Operative times revealed a fast-learning experience, stabilizing after 10-15 cases. Surgeons reported high comfort (LED Median 3, IQR 0-6) and low stress (SMEQ median 10, IQR 10-26.25).
CONCLUSION: The Dexter system was safely implemented in clinical practice, with efficient learning curve and low perceived stress, even for surgeons without prior robotic experience. Further studies are needed to determine whether Dexter offers advantages over conventional techniques.

Keywords

Dexter Robotic Surgery system cholecystectomy minimally invasive surgery robot‐assisted surgery

References

  1. K. H. Sheetz and J. B. Dimick, “Minimally Invasive Operative Techniques: Is Less Always More?,” Surgery 161, no. 5 (2017): 1455–1457, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.10.037.
  2. M. A. Abd El Aziz, F. Grass, K. T. Behm, et al., “Trends of Complications and Innovative Techniques’ Utilization for Colectomies in the United States,” Updates in Surgery 73, no. 1 (2021): 101–110, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304‐020‐00862‐y.
  3. J. Himpens, G. Leman, and G. B. Cadiere, “Telesurgical Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy,” Surgical Endoscopy 12, no. 8 (1998): 1091, https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900788.
  4. J. A. Zaman and T. P. Singh, “The Emerging Role for Robotics in Cholecystectomy: The Dawn of a New Era?,” Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition 7, no. 1 (2018): 21–28, https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2017.03.01.
  5. E. Aguayo, V. Dobaria, M. Nakhla, et al., “National Trends and Outcomes of Inpatient Robotic‐Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy,” Surgery 168, no. 4 (2020): 625–630, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.06.018.
  6. A. Pordal, J. D. Guerra, D. Morin, W. Oppat, M. J. Jacobs, and S. Patil, “Temporal and Institutional Trends in Robotic Surgery,” Journal of Robotic Surgery 18, no. 1 (2024): 191, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐024‐01914‐w.
  7. C. M. Haney, E. Karadza, E. F. Limen, et al., “Training and Learning Curves in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: From Simulation to Mastery,” Journal of Pancreatology 3, no. 2 (2020): 101–110, https://doi.org/10.1097/jp9.0000000000000050.
  8. A. Farrugia, Q. R. Muhammad, N. T. Ravichandran, M. Ali, G. Marangoni, and J. Ahmad, “Proposed Training Pathway With Initial Experience to Set up Robotic Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Service,” Journal of Robotic Surgery 16, no. 1 (2022): 65–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐021‐01207‐6.
  9. S. Breitenstein, A. Nocito, M. Puhan, U. Held, M. Weber, and P.‐A. Clavien, “Robotic‐Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Outcome and Cost Analyses of a Case‐Matched Control Study,” Annals of Surgery 247, no. 6 (2008): 987–993, https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318172501f.
  10. L. F. Grochola, C. Soll, A. Zehnder, R. Wyss, P. Herzog, and S. Breitenstein, “Robot‐Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Single‐Incision Cholecystectomy: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial,” Surgical Endoscopy 33, no. 5 (2019): 1482–1490, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐018‐6430‐7.
  11. S. Chandhok, P. Chao, J. Koea, and S. Srinivasa, “Robotic‐Assisted Cholecystectomy: Current Status and Future Application,” Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery 5, no. 3 (2022): 85–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lers.2022.06.002.
  12. A. Singh, N. S. Panse, V. Prasath, S. Arjani, and R. J. Chokshi, “Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Robotic Cholecystectomy in the Treatment of Benign Gallbladder Disease,” Surgery 173, no. 6 (2023): 1323–1328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.01.017.
  13. A. P. Ng, Y. Sanaiha, S. S. Bakhtiyar, S. Ebrahimian, C. Branche, and P. Benharash, “National Analysis of Cost Disparities in Robotic‐Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Abdominal Operations,” Surgery 173, no. 6 (2023): 1340–1345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.02.016.
  14. T. J. Vidovszky, W. Smith, J. Ghosh, and M. R. Ali, “Robotic Cholecystectomy: Learning Curve, Advantages, and Limitations,” Journal of Surgical Research 136, no. 2 (2006): 172–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.03.021.
  15. F. Kanji, T. Cohen, M. Alfred, et al., “Room Size Influences Flow in Robotic‐Assisted Surgery,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 15 (2021): 7984, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157984.
  16. K. Catchpole, C. Perkins, C. Bresee, et al., “Safety, Efficiency and Learning Curves in Robotic Surgery: A Human Factors Analysis,” Surgical Endoscopy 30, no. 9 (2016): 3749–3761, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐015‐4671‐2.
  17. M. Boal, C. G. Di Girasole, F. Tesfai, et al., “Evaluation Status of Current and Emerging Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgical Platforms,” Surgical Endoscopy 38, no. 2 (2024): 554–585, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐023‐10554‐4.
  18. R. H. van der Schatte Olivier, C. D. P. van‘t Hullenaar, J. P. Ruurda, and I. A. M. J. Broeders, “Ergonomics, User Comfort, and Performance in Standard and Robot‐Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy 23, no. 6 (2009): 1365–1371, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐008‐0184‐6.
  19. S. Arora, T. Tierney, N. Sevdalis, et al., “The Imperial Stress Assessment Tool (ISAT): A Feasible, Reliable and Valid Approach to Measuring Stress in the Operating Room,” World Journal of Surgery 34, no. 8 (2010): 1756–1763, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268‐010‐0559‐4.
  20. L. F. Grochola, C. Soll, A. Zehnder, R. Wyss, P. Herzog, and S. Breitenstein, “Robot‐Assisted Single‐Site Compared With Laparoscopic Single‐Incision Cholecystectomy for Benign Gallbladder Disease: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial,” BMC Surgery 17, no. 1 (2017): 13, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893‐017‐0206‐1.
  21. F. R. H. Zijlstra, Efficiency in Work Behaviour: A Design Approach for Modern Tools (Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press, 1993).
  22. A. N. Zsido, S. A. Teleki, K. Csokasi, S. Rozsa, and S. A. Bandi, “Development of the Short Version of the Spielberger State—Trait Anxiety Inventory,” Psychiatry Research 291 (2020): 113223, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113223.
  23. T. M. Marteau and H. Bekker, “The Development of a Six‐Item Short‐Form of the State Scale of the Spielberger State—Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI),” British Journal of Clinical Psychology 31, no. 3 (1992): 301–306, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8260.1992.tb00997.x.
  24. S. Kalata, J. R. Thumma, E. C. Norton, J. B. Dimick, and K. H. Sheetz, “Comparative Safety of Robotic‐Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy,” JAMA Surg 158, no. 12 (2023): 1303–1310, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4389.
  25. D. Hahnloser, D. Rrupa, and F. Grass, “Feasibility of On‐Demand Robotics in Colorectal Surgery: First Cases,” Surgical Endoscopy 37, no. 11 (2023): 8594–8600, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐023‐10284‐7.
  26. M. Oner, “Initial Experience of a Single Surgeon for Safety and Feasibility of the Versius Robotic System in Robot‐Assisted Cholecystectomy and Hernia Repair,” Journal of Robotic Surgery 18, no. 1 (2024): 162, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701‐024‐01936‐4.
  27. T. Sasaki, F. Tomohisa, M. Nishimura, et al., “Initial 30 Cholecystectomy Procedures Performed With the Senhance Digital Laparoscopy System,” Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery 16, no. 2 (2023): 225–232, https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.13143.
  28. E. Vicente, Y. Quijano, V. Ferri, and R. Caruso, “Robot‐Assisted Cholecystectomy With the New HUGO Robotic‐Assisted System: First Worldwide Report With System Description, Docking Settings, and Video,” Updates in Surgery 75, no. 7 (2023): 2039–2042, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304‐023‐01553‐0.
  29. S. Wehrmann, K. Tischendorf, T. Mehlhorn, et al., “Clinical Implementation of the Versius Robotic Surgical System in Visceral Surgery‐A Single Centre Experience and Review of the First 175 Patients,” Surgical Endoscopy 37, no. 1 (2023): 528–534, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐022‐09526‐x.
  30. D.‐ho Lee, Y. J. Ahn, H. W. Lee, J. K. Chung, and In M. Jung, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Clinically Significant Retained Common Bile Duct Stones After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Symptomatic Cholelithiasis,” Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 91, no. 5 (2016): 239, https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2016.91.5.239.
  31. J. Heemskerk, H. R. Zandbergen, S. W. M. Keet, et al., “Relax, Its Just Laparoscopy! A Prospective Randomized Trial on Heart Rate Variability of the Surgeon in Robot‐Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy,” Digestive Surgery 31, no. 3 (2014): 225–232, https://doi.org/10.1159/000365580.
  32. D. Stefanidis, W. W. Hope, and D. J. Scott, “Robotic Suturing on the FLS Model Possesses Construct Validity, is Less Physically Demanding, and is Favored by More Surgeons Compared With Laparoscopy,” Surgical Endoscopy 25, no. 7 (2011): 2141–2146, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464‐010‐1512‐1.
  33. O. Lefetz, J.‐M. Baste, J.‐F. Hamel, G. Mordojovich, A. Lefevre‐Scelles, and J.‐M. Coq, “Robotic Surgery and Work‐Related Stress: A Systematic Review,” Applied Ergonomics 117 (2024): 104188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104188.
  34. L. P. H. Andersen, M. Klein, I. Gögenur, and J. Rosenberg, “Psychological and Physical Stress Among Experienced and Inexperienced Surgeons During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy,” Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 22, no. 1 (2012): 73–78, https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0b013e3182420acf.
  35. M. López‐Cano, J. A. Pereira, S. Mojal, et al., “An Ergonomic Study of Single‐Port Versus Multi‐Port Laparoscopic Mesh Insertion for Ventral Hernia Repair,” European Surgical Research 49, no. 3‐4 (2012): 107–112, https://doi.org/10.1159/000342925.
  36. A. Shugaba, J. E. Lambert, T. M. Bampouras, H. E. Nuttall, C. J. Gaffney, and D. A. Subar, “Should All Minimal Access Surgery Be Robot‐Assisted? A Systematic Review into the Musculoskeletal and Cognitive Demands of Laparoscopic and Robot‐Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 26, no. 7 (2022): 1520–1530, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605‐022‐05319‐8.
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0DextersurgeryIQRRoboticstressroboticexperienceMediantimeuseminimallyinvasivevisceralsafetyelectivecholecystectomysurgeonsSMEQLEDrangewithoutcaseslowsystemSurgeryBACKGROUND:surgicalrobotsincreasingnewplatformslikeSystemstudyevaluatedimplementationgeneraldepartmentfocusingperformancesurgeonMATERIALSANDMETHODS:ThreevaryinglaparoscopicperformedcholecystectomiesDecember2022June2024Perioperativeoutcomesdatacollected30 dayspost-surgerySurgeons'loadphysicaldiscomfortassessedusingvalidatedquestionnairesSTAIRESULTS:Fifty-ninepatientsunderwentgallbladderremovalage52 years27-85BMI263 kg/m183-412surgeriescompletedroboticallyconversionopenintraoperativecomplicationsdevicedeficienciesTwoconvertedlaparoscopyduepatientanatomylivertumordiscoveryOnepostoperativecomplicationClavien-Dindograde3AinvolvedcholedocholithiasisrequiringERCPtotaloperatingdockingconsole60 min50-785 min4-723 min19-34respectivelyOperativetimesrevealedfast-learningstabilizing10-15Surgeonsreportedhighcomfort30-6median1010-2625CONCLUSION:safelyimplementedclinicalpracticeefficientlearningcurveperceivedevenpriorstudiesneededdeterminewhetheroffersadvantagesconventionaltechniquesImplementationSurgicalProgramSystem:InitialExperiencesCholecystectomyrobot‐assisted

Similar Articles

Cited By