A prospective study of the components of operating room utilisation time for robotic urological surgery in a public teaching hospital setting

Abstract

Introduction and aim:

Although there are several publications on learning curves and patient outcomes in robotic surgery, the literature is lacking in depth analysis of operating room (OR) utilisation time which is an expansive healthcare resource for robotic surgery, especially in urology. Thus, we aimed to study individual operating theatre component times in order to improve performance and efficacy.

Method:

A cross-specialty robotic-surgery programme was established at our institution in mid-June 2016 using the daVinci Xi dual console robot. A detailed database was established before initiation of the project. The times taken for each element of the preparation and completion of robotic urological procedure were collected by an independent nurse for all the procedures. Primary outcome measures were total OR time, operative time and console time. Secondary outcome measures were port placement time, set-up time and non-operative time. The statistical significance was calculated by using the Student’s t-test, Fisher’s exact test or Wilcoxon matched pairs test where appropriate.

Result:

Thirty consecutive urological cases were analysed. Mean total OR time, operative time and console time were 320.86 (range 172–485), 235.7 (124–295) and 152.3 min (66–219) respectively. Console time accounted for about less than half of OR time. A significant proportion of OR time was non-operative time (almost one third). After an initial learning curve, set-up time was consistently maintained for most robotic procedures.

Conclusions:

The findings of this study have three implications for clinical practice. Firstly, console time contributed about half of the OR time. This can be optimised with experience. Secondly robot set-up time is likely to reduce with the experience of the whole team. Finally, non-operative OR time constitute a significant one third of the OR time during robotic surgery. Efforts to reduce non-surgical aspect of OR time will have potential to reduce cost and improve efficiency.

Level of Evidence:

Keywords

Robotics operating room organizational efficiency minimally invasive surgical procedures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Company FAQ, https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/healthcare-professionals/surgeons (2018).

Davies

A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2000; 214(1): 129–140.

Ploussard

Xylinas

Paul

, et al. Is robot assistance affecting operating room time compared with pure retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? J Endourol 2009; 23(6): 939–943.

Geller

Schuler

Boggess

. Robotic surgical training program in gynecology: how to train residents and fellows. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18(2): 224–229.

Iranmanesh

Morel

Wagner

, et al. Set-up and docking of the da Vinci surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot 2010; 6(1): 57–60.

Marjamaa

Vakkuri

Kirvela

. Operating room management: why, how and by whom? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008; 52(5): 596–600.

Catanzarite

Saha

Pilecki

, et al. Longer operative time during benign laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy is associated with increased 30-day perioperative complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22(6): 1049–1058.

Zettervall

Amdur

Vaziri

. Outcomes of prolonged laparoscopic bariatric operations compared with shorter open procedures. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2015; 25(6): 496–499.

Aziz

Lehman

Reed

. Increased duration of operating time for carotid endarterectomy is associated with increased mortality. Ann Vasc Surg 2016; 36: 166–174.

10.

Ang

Sabharwal

Johannsson

, et al. The cost of trauma operating theatre inefficiency. Ann Med Surg 2016; 7: 24–29.

11.

Chen

Hsu

, et al. Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data. J Surg Oncol 2018; 117(3):497–505.

12.

Murphy

Bjartell

Ficarra

, et al. Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol 2010; 57(5): 735–746.

13.

Lasser

Patel

Elsamra

, et al. Dedicated robotics team reduces pre-surgical preparation time. Indian J Urol 2012; 28(3): 263–266.

14.

Mayer

Winkler

Aggarwal

, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: the first UK experience. Int J Med Robot 2006; 2(4): 321–28.

15.

Martinschek

Welzel

Ritter

, et al. The concentration of console surgeons: prospective evaluation of the loss of attention in robotic-assisted procedures. J Robot Surg 2018; 12(4): 673–678.

16.

Bolger

Broe

Zarog

, et al. Initial experience with a dual-console robotic-assisted platform for training in colorectal surgery. Tech Coloproctol 2017; 21(9): 721–727.

17.

Sokolovic

Biro

Wyss

, et al. Impact of the reduction of anaesthesia turnover time on operating room efficiency. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2002; 19(8): 560–563.

18.

Danic

Chow

Alexander

, et al. Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robot Surg 2007; 1(2): 119–123.

19.

Al-Hakim

Arora

Sevdalis

. Impact of disruptions on anaesthetic workflow during anaesthesia induction and patient positioning: a prospective study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2016; 33(8): 581–587.

20.

Lewis

Nicholson

Smith

, et al. Physician anaesthetists versus non-physician providers of anaesthesia for surgical patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(7): Cd010357.

21.

Weigl

Weber

Hallett

, et al. Associations of intraoperative flow disruptions and operating room teamwork during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 2018; 114:105–113.

22.

Catchpole

Bisantz

Hallbeck

, et al. Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: lessons from studies ‘in the Wild’. Appl Ergon 2019; 78: 270–276.