The global numbers of robotic gastrointestinal surgeries are increasing. However, the evidence base for robotic gastrointestinal surgery does not yet support its widespread adoption or justify its cost. The reasons for its continued popularity are complex, but a notable driver is the push for innovation — robotic surgery is seen as a compelling solution for delivering on the promise of minimally invasive precision surgery — and a changing commercial landscape delivers the promise of increased affordability. Novel systems will leverage the robot as a data-driven platform, integrating advances in imaging, artificial intelligence and machine learning for decision support. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be heeded from current clinical trials and translational strategies, which have failed to demonstrate patient benefit. In this Perspective, we critically appraise current research to define the principles on which the next generation of gastrointestinal robotics trials should be based. We also discuss the emerging commercial landscape and define existing and new technologies.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Annual report 2018. http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReports/PDF/NASDAQ_ISRG_2018.pdf (2019).
Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program Collaborative. Adoption of laparoscopy for elective colorectal resection: a report from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 214, 909–918.e1 (2012).
National Bowel Cancer Audit. Annual report 2018. https://www.nboca.org.uk/content/uploads/2018/12/NBOCA-annual-report2018.pdf (2018).
Acuna, S. A. et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal cancer: a noninferiority meta-analysis of quality of surgical resection outcomes. Ann. Surg. 269, 849–855 (2019).
Lanfranco, A. R. et al. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann. Surg. 239, 14–21 (2004).
Barbash, G. I. & Glied, S. A. New technology and health care costs — the case of robot-assisted surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 701–704 (2010).
Tan, A. et al. Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg. Endosc. 30, 4330–4352 (2016).
Cheng, C. L. & Rezac, C. The role of robotics in colorectal surgery. BMJ 360, j5304 (2018).
Harr, J. N. et al. Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in obese patients: a case-matched series. Surg. Endosc. 31, 2813–2819 (2017).
Kelley, S. R., Duchalais, E. & Larson, D. W. Short-term outcomes with robotic right colectomy. Am. Surg. 84, 1768–1773 (2018).
Walker, P. A. et al. Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics? Surg. Endosc. 32, 1901–1905 (2018).
Yang, S. Y. et al. Surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 24, 1770–1777 (2017).
Bhama, A. R., Obias, V., Welch, K. B., Vandewarker, J. F. & Cleary, R. K. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. Surg. Endosc. 30, 1576–1584 (2016).
Tam, M. S. et al. A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery. Surg. Endosc. 30, 455–463 (2016).
Speicher, P. J. et al. Robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a national perspective on short-term oncologic outcomes. Ann. Surg. 262, 1040–1045 (2015).
Zhang, X., Wei, Z., Bie, M., Peng, X. & Chen, C. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 30, 5601–5614 (2016).
D’Annibale, A. et al. Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg. Endosc. 27, 1887–1895 (2013).
Kim, J. Y. et al. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 19, 2485–2493 (2012).
Cadiere, G. B. et al. Evaluation of telesurgical (robotic) Nissen fundoplication. Surg. Endosc. 15, 918–923 (2001).
Zhou, H. X. et al. Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Dis. Int. 5, 115–118 (2006).
Patel, S. V., Yu, D., Elsolh, B., Goldacre, B. M. & Nash, G. M. Assessment of conflicts of interest in robotic surgical studies: validating author’s declarations with the open payments database. Ann. Surg. 268, 86–92 (2018).
Criss, C. N. & Gadepalli, S. K. Sponsoring surgeons: an investigation on the influence of the da Vinci robot. Am. J. Surg. 216, 84–87 (2018).
Sanchez, B. R. et al. Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. 1, 549–554 (2005).
Park, J. S., Choi, G. S., Park, S. Y., Kim, H. J. & Ryuk, J. P. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br. J. Surg. 99, 1219–1226 (2012).
Morino, M., Pellegrino, L., Giaccone, C., Garrone, C. & Rebecchi, F. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br. J. Surg. 93, 553–558 (2006).
Jayne, D. et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318, 1569–1580 (2017).
van der Pas, M. H. et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 14, 210–218 (2013).
Deijen, C. L. et al. COLOR III: a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing transanal TME versus laparoscopic TME for mid and low rectal cancer. Surg. Endosc. 30, 3210–3215 (2016).
Schiff, L. et al. Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. JSLS 20, e2016.00026 (2016).
Vande Walle, K. & Greenberg, C. Intraoperative non-technical skills: a critical target for improving surgical outcomes. BMJ Qual. Saf. 27, 99–101 (2018).
Sexton, K. et al. Anticipation, teamwork and cognitive load: chasing efficiency during robot-assisted surgery. BMJ Qual. Saf. 27, 148–154 (2018).
Yule, S. et al. Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery 139, 140–149 (2006).
Coleman, M. & Rockall, T. Teaching of laparoscopic surgery colorectal. The Lapco model. Cir. Esp. 91, 279–280 (2013).
Wyles, S. M. et al. Development and implementation of the Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report (STTAR) in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg. Endosc. 30, 993–1003 (2016).
Chen, R. et al. A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg. Endosc. 34, 361–367 (2019).
Goh, A. C., Goldfarb, D. W., Sander, J. C., Miles, B. J. & Dunkin, B. J. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J. Urol. 187, 247–252 (2011).
Collins, J. W. et al. Utilising the Delphi process to develop a proficiency-based progression train-the-trainer course for robotic surgery training. Eur. Urol. 75, 775–785 (2019).
Gomez Ruiz, M. et al. Expert consensus on a train-the-trainer curriculum for robotic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 21, 903–908 (2019).
Tom, C. M. et al. A survey of robotic surgery training curricula in general surgery residency programs: how close are we to a standardized curriculum? Am. J. Surg. 217, 256–260 (2019).
Smith, R., Patel, V. & Satava, R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int. J. Med. Robot. 10, 379–384 (2014).
Satava, R. M. et al. Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220 (2019).
Tou, S. et al. Structured training in robotic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 17, 185 (2015).
Pradarelli, J. C., Campbell, D. A. Jr. & Dimick, J. B. Hospital credentialing and privileging of surgeons: a potential safety blind spot. JAMA 313, 1313–1314 (2015).
Wang, Z. & Majewicz Fey, A. Deep learning with convolutional neural network for objective skill evaluation in robot-assisted surgery. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 13, 1959–1970 (2018).
Reiley, C. E. & Hager, G. D. in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention — MICCAI 2009 (eds Yang, G. Z., Hawkes, D., Rueckert, D., Noble, A. & Taylor, C.) 435–442 (Springer, 2009).
Lee, J. G. et al. Deep learning in medical imaging: general overview. Korean J. Radiol. 18, 570–584 (2017).
Liu, X. et al. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Dig. Health 1, PE271–E297 (2019).
Shademan, A. et al. Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci. Transl Med. 8, 337ra64 (2016).
Li, J. et al. Micro/nanorobots for biomedicine: delivery, surgery, sensing, and detoxification. Sci. Robot. 2, eaam6431 (2017).
Dolph, E., Krause, C. & Oleynikov, D. in Future Robotic Systems: Microrobotics and Autonomous Robots (eds. Tsuda, S. & Kudsi, O.) 329–335 (Springer, 2019).
Atallah, A. et al. Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Br. J. Surg. 102, e73–e92 (2015).
Kirschniak, A. et al. Augmented reality, cyber-physical systems and robotic surgery: nice to have or a program with future? Visc. Med. 34, 60–65 (2018).
International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. Artificial intelligence, robotics, privacy and data protection. European Data Protection Supervisor. https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-10-19_marrakesh_ai_paper_en.pdf (2016).
Shah, H. The DeepMind debacle demands dialogue on data. Nature 547, 259 (2017).
McCulloch, P. et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374, 1105–1112 (2009).
Fueglistaler, P., Adamina, M. & Guller, U. Non-inferiority trials in surgical oncology. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 14, 1532–1539 (2007).
Park, E. J. et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery. Ann. Surg. 261, 129–137 (2015).
Kim, Y. W., Lee, H. M., Kim, N. K., Min, B. S. & Lee, K. Y. The learning curve for robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 22, 400–405 (2012).
Makela-Kaikkonen, J. et al. Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. 18, 1010–1015 (2016).
Benizri, E. I. et al. Perioperative outcomes after totally robotic gastric bypass: a prospective nonrandomized controlled study. Am. J. Surg. 206, 145–151 (2013).
Draaisma, W. A. et al. Randomized clinical trial of standard laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br. J. Surg. 93, 1351–1359 (2006).
Muller-Stich, B. P. et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surg. Endosc. 21, 1800–1805 (2007).
Ruurda, J. P., Visser, P. L. & Broeders, I. A. Analysis of procedure time in robot-assisted surgery: comparative study in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Comput. Aided Surg. 8, 24–29 (2003).
Pietrabissa, A. et al. Short-term outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Surg. Endosc. 30, 3089–3097 (2016).
Heemskerk, J. et al. Relax, it’s just laparoscopy! A prospective randomized trial on heart rate variability of the surgeon in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig. Surg. 31, 225–232 (2014).
Aggarwal, R. et al. Initial experience with a new robotic surgical system for cholecystectomy. Surg. Innov. 27, 136–142 (2019).
Melling, N. et al. Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system. J. Robot. Surg. 13, 495–500 (2019).
Spinelli, A. et al. First experience in colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform with haptic feedback. Colorectal Dis. 20, 228–235 (2017).
Darwich, I. et al. A roadmap for robotic-assisted sigmoid resection in diverticular disease using a Senhance™ surgical robotic system: results and technical aspects. J. Robot. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00980-9 (2019).
Rumolo, V. et al. Senhance robotic platform for gynecologic surgery: a review of literature. Updates Surg. 71, 419–427 (2019).
Schmitz, R. et al. Robotic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) first experience with the new Senhance robotic system. Surg. Technol. Int. 34, 243–249 (2019).
Schmitz, R. et al. Robotic-assisted Nissen fundoplication with the Senhance surgical system: technical aspects and early results. Surg. Technol. Int. 35, 133–139 (2019).
Kastelan, Z. et al. Extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with the Senhance surgical system robotic platform. Croat. Med. J. 60, 556–559 (2019).
Montlouis-Calixte, J. et al. Senhance 3-mm robot-assisted surgery: experience on first 14 patients in France. J. Robot. Surg. 13, 643–647 (2019).
Samalavicius, N. E. et al. Robotic surgery using Senhance robotic platform: single center experience with first 100 cases. J. Robot. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01000-6 (2019).
deBeche-Adams, T., Eubanks, S. & de la Fuente, S. G. Early experience with the Senhance-laparoscopic/robotic platform in the US. J. Robot. Surg. 13, 357–359 (2019).
Stephan, D., Salzer, H. & Willeke, F. First experiences with the new Senhance telerobotic system in visceral surgery. Visc. Med. 34, 31–36 (2018).
CMR Surgical. CMR Surgical successfully completes first set of robotically assisted surgical procedures in humans. https://cmrsurgical.com/cmr-surgical-successfully-completes-first-set-of-robotically-assisted-surgical-procedures-in-humans/ (2019).
Clinical Trials Registry of India. ctri.nic.in http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=31768&EncHid=&userName=versius (2019).
Paull, J. I. et al. The outcomes of two robotic platforms performing transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neoplasia: a case series of 21 patients. J. Robot. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01021-1 (2019).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03323060 (2019).
Lang, S. et al. A European multicenter study evaluating the Flex robotic system in transoral robotic surgery. Laryngoscope 127, 391–395 (2017).
Persky, M. J. et al. Transoral surgery using the Flex robotic system: initial experience in the United States. Head Neck 40, 2482–2486 (2018).
Sethi, N. et al. Transoral robotic surgery using the Medrobotic Flex system: the Adelaide experience. J. Robot. Surg. 14, 109–113 (2019).
Hussain, T. et al. The Flex robotic system compared to transoral laser microsurgery for the resection of supraglottic carcinomas: first results and preliminary oncologic outcomes. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 277, 917–924 (2020).
Mattheis, S. et al. Flex robotic system in transoral robotic surgery: the first 40 patients. Head Neck 39, 471–475 (2017).
Agarwal, D. K. et al. Initial experience with da Vinci single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Eur. Urol. 77, 373–379 (2019).
Kaouk, J. et al. Step-by-step technique for single-port robot-assisted radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph nodes dissection using the da Vinci SP surgical system. BJU Int. 124, 282–285 (2019).
Steinberg, R. L. et al. Initial experience with extraperitoneal robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy using the da Vinci SP surgical system. J. Robot. Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01029-7 (2019).
Kaouk, J. et al. Pure single-site robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using the SP surgical system: initial clinical experience. Urology 124, 282–285 (2019).
Chan, J. Y. K. et al. Prospective clinical trial to evaluate safety and feasibility of using a single port flexible robotic system for transoral head and neck surgery. Oral Oncol. 94, 101–105 (2019).
Park, Y. M. et al. The first human trial of transoral robotic surgery using a single-port robotic system in the treatment of laryngo-pharyngeal cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 26, 4472–4480 (2019).
Holsinger, F. C. et al. A next-generation single-port robotic surgical system for transoral robotic surgery: results from prospective nonrandomized clinical trials. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 145, 1027–1034 (2019).
Infrastructure support for this research was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.
J.M.K. has been a consultant for Verb Surgical and Ethicon. He has also received research funding from Intuitive Surgical. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery: https://earcs.pt/
About this article
Cite this article
Kinross, J.M., Mason, S.E., Mylonas, G. et al. Next-generation robotics in gastrointestinal surgery. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 17, 430–440 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-020-0290-z
Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie (2021)
Investigating the Ethical and Data Governance Issues of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: Protocol for a Delphi Study
JMIR Research Protocols (2021)
Validation of Ultrasonic Harmonic Scalpel for Real-Time Tissue Identification Using Rapid Evaporative Ionization Mass Spectrometry
Analytical Chemistry (2021)
Updates in Surgery (2021)