The Surprising Truth: Why Open Surgery Might Be Better Than Minimally Invasive Options
Introduction
The open surgery definition encompasses direct physical access to organs and tissues through larger incisions, a technique that remains essential despite the technological revolution in surgical care. While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed surgical practice over the past four decades, changing the surgical landscape more dramatically than any other transition, traditional open procedures continue to serve vital purposes in modern medicine. Indeed, the shift toward minimally invasive techniques has steadily reduced exposure to open cases among surgical residents, potentially creating skill gaps for future surgeons.
Despite the widespread adoption of laparoscopic and robotic approaches, open surgery remains a necessary component of a surgeon’s toolkit. Areas such as trauma, major oncologic resection, and organ transplantation continue to be performed primarily through open surgery because they require comprehensive access to the operative space. Moreover, when complications arise during minimally invasive procedures, conversion to open surgery occurs in approximately 10-16% of colorectal cancer cases, highlighting the ongoing need for open surgical proficiency. This necessity becomes even more apparent when considering that in certain diseases, including early-stage cervical cancer, patients who undergo open surgery demonstrate better disease-free survival and overall survival than those treated with minimally invasive approaches.
The introduction of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has further increased MIS rates, with one study showing a rise from 60.5% to 65.8% in hospitals that adopted robotic systems. Nevertheless, this technological advancement, while expanding minimally invasive options, cannot completely replace the fundamental skills acquired through open surgical training. The tactile feedback, direct visualization, and immediate access offered by open procedures provide advantages that, in specific contexts, outweigh the benefits of smaller incisions and reduced recovery time.
This article examines the often overlooked value of open surgery in an era dominated by minimally invasive approaches, exploring when traditional techniques might deliver superior outcomes and why maintaining open surgical skills remains crucial for surgeons at all career stages.
The rise of minimally invasive surgery
The evolution of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) represents one of the most fundamental shifts in medical history. Beginning in the early 20th century with pioneers like Georg Kelling and Hans Christian Jacobeus, what started as simple diagnostic procedures has transformed into sophisticated therapeutic interventions across multiple specialties.
How laparoscopy changed surgical practice
Laparoscopy’s journey began with rudimentary techniques but accelerated dramatically in the 1960s and 1980s. Initially met with substantial resistance from the surgical community, it eventually evolved from a purely diagnostic tool into an independent surgical approach. The transformation gained momentum in 1981 when Kurt Semm performed the first laparoscopic appendectomy—a breakthrough that redefined surgical possibilities. Subsequently, in 1985, Erich Mühe conducted the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy, reporting 97 successful operations by this method just two years later.
The introduction of the rod-lens optical system and cold light fiber-glass illumination proved crucial to laparoscopy’s growing popularity. Likewise, the development of the computer-chip television camera marked a pivotal advancement, allowing surgeons to view projected images of abdominal contents rather than looking directly through scopes. This innovation facilitated the free movement of surgeons’ hands and enabled more complex procedures.
Before these innovations, traditional open procedure surgery relied on the notion that major medical problems required major solutions—specifically, large abdominal incisions. Conversely, laparoscopy challenged this paradigm by demonstrating that effective surgery could be performed through minimally invasive means.
The emergence of robotic-assisted surgery
Robotic technology entered the surgical arena approximately 35 years ago, but experienced exponential growth primarily in the last two decades. The first robotic platform used on a human patient was the Programmable Universal Machine for Assembly 200 (PUMA), employed for neurosurgical biopsies in 1985. Following this, the Robodoc® Surgical System was developed in 1992 for prosthetic hip replacement.
A significant milestone occurred in 1998 with the commercial sale of the da Vinci system to the Leipzig Heart Center in Germany, enabling less invasive cardiac valve repairs and coronary artery bypass grafts. The da Vinci system, composed of a patient cart, surgeon console, and image system, later received FDA approval for general laparoscopic procedures, becoming the first operative surgical robot in the United States.
Robotic-assisted surgery overcomes many intrinsic limitations of conventional laparoscopy by offering:
- High definition, three-dimensional stereoscopic vision and magnification
- Stable, surgeon-guided camera control
- Improved ergonomics with a superior range of motion
- Motion scaling for precision work
Additionally, the robotic controls filter out hand tremors, allowing surgeons to perform complex movements with remarkable precision through minimally invasive incisions.
Why MIS became the preferred choice
The shift toward MIS as the preferred surgical approach stems from its numerous patient benefits compared to open surgery. Minimally invasive procedures consistently demonstrate less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery than conventional approaches to the same operations. Accordingly, patients can often return to daily activities quickly with minimal restrictions—some even resuming work within days of their procedure.
The cosmetic benefits are also compelling, as MIS typically results in minimal scarring. In fact, incisional scars are often virtually invisible three months post-operation. Furthermore, MIS patients generally require less pain medication, experience reduced blood loss, and face lower infection risks.
The UK’s National Bowel Cancer Audit illustrates this transition, showing laparoscopic colorectal resections increased from approximately 25% in 2008–2009 to 61% in 2017–2018. This trend reflects both patient preferences and physician recognition of MIS benefits.
As a result of these advantages, MIS has become standard practice across multiple specialties. Procedures ranging from appendectomies and cholecystectomies to cancer surgeries and gynecological interventions now routinely employ minimally invasive techniques. The introduction of specialized training opportunities—including weekend courses, video libraries, and hands-on conferences—has facilitated this transition, helping practicing surgeons incorporate these techniques into their clinical repertoire.
What we’re missing: the overlooked value of open surgery 
As surgical techniques continue to evolve toward minimally invasive approaches, certain fundamental advantages of traditional methods have become increasingly overlooked. Amid the rush to adopt newer technologies, many physicians and patients underestimate the unique benefits that only open procedure surgery can offer in specific clinical contexts.
Open surgery offers tactile feedback and visibility.
One irreplaceable aspect of open surgery is the direct tactile feedback surgeons receive when physically handling tissues and organs. This hands-on interaction provides crucial sensory information that cannot be fully replicated through minimally invasive instruments. Notably, the ability to palpate tissues allows surgeons to detect subtle abnormalities that imaging might miss, particularly useful when locating small tumors or assessing tissue viability.
Unlike laparoscopic or robotic approaches, open procedure techniques provide unmediated three-dimensional visualization of the surgical field. This direct line of sight provides superior depth perception and enables surgeons to observe the entire operative area simultaneously, without the limitations of a camera’s field of view. Furthermore, the unrestricted access enables immediate responses to unexpected findings or complications without the constraints of working through ports or trocars.
The absence of this tactile element in minimally invasive approaches represents a genuine loss that technology has yet to adequately address. Though haptic feedback technology continues to advance, current systems still fall short of replicating the nuanced sensory information available through direct touch.
Better suited for complex or emergency cases
In scenarios involving intricate anatomical relationships or unforeseen complications, open surgery often remains the safest option. Particularly in cases with dense adhesions from prior surgeries, the direct visualization and unrestricted instrument movement afforded by open techniques can prove invaluable for safe dissection.
Emergencies frequently benefit from the expediency of open approaches. When patients present with severe bleeding or perforation requiring immediate intervention, the rapid access afforded by an open incision can be life-saving. Additionally, unexpected intraoperative findings may necessitate conversion from minimally invasive to open techniques, highlighting the enduring relevance of open surgical skills.
The learning curve associated with minimally invasive techniques presents another consideration. For surgeons early in their careers, open surgical procedures often allow for more straightforward management of complex cases while they develop proficiency with advanced techniques. This becomes especially pertinent considering that conversion rates from laparoscopic to open approaches can reach 10-15% in complicated colorectal procedures.
Still essential in trauma, oncology, and transplant
Trauma surgery overwhelmingly relies on open techniques, primarily because these cases demand rapid access to multiple body regions simultaneously. Major abdominal trauma particularly benefits from the comprehensive exposure that only open surgery can provide, allowing quick assessment and control of bleeding sources.
In oncology, certain cancer operations continue to depend on open surgery for optimal outcomes. While minimally invasive approaches have gained traction in many cancer procedures, complex cases requiring extensive lymph node dissections or multivisceral resections often necessitate open techniques to ensure complete tumor removal. Interestingly, the LACC trial demonstrated superior outcomes with open radical hysterectomy compared to minimally invasive approaches for early cervical cancer—underscoring that newer doesn’t always mean better.
Organ transplantation remains almost exclusively in the domain of open surgery. The delicate nature of vascular anastomoses and the need to minimize warm ischemia time make open techniques indispensable for most transplant procedures. Similarly, certain pediatric surgeries, particularly those involving congenital anomalies, benefit from the precision and adaptability of open approaches.
While minimally invasive surgery continues its remarkable trajectory, the surgical community must recognize that open surgery isn’t merely an outdated technique waiting for technological replacement—it remains an essential approach with unique advantages in specific contexts. Maintaining proficiency in open techniques, therefore, represents not just a contingency plan but a crucial component of comprehensive surgical care.
Robotic vs laparoscopic vs open: what the data says
Examining the evidence between surgical approaches reveals nuanced differences in outcomes, costs, and clinical applications. Multiple large-scale studies have directly compared robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopic surgery, and traditional open techniques across various specialties, producing data that challenge some common assumptions.
Comparing outcomes across procedures
A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning 12 years of research and including over 3.9 million cases demonstrates several advantages of robotic surgery over alternatives. Patients undergoing robotic procedures experienced 10% fewer postoperative complications within 30 days than with laparoscopic approaches and 44% fewer than with open surgery. Additionally, robotic surgery patients were 21% less likely to receive blood transfusions than those undergoing laparoscopic procedures and 75% less likely than those undergoing open surgery.
Length of hospital stay shows consistent differences across all surgical types. Robotic procedures resulted in a half-day shorter hospitalization than laparoscopic surgery and nearly 2 days less than open surgery. A recent study of colorectal surgeries found even more dramatic differences, with robotic patients staying 5.6 days compared to 7.9 days for laparoscopic and 11.2 days for open approaches.
Concerning mortality risk, robotic surgery demonstrates favorable outcomes, with 14% lower 30-day mortality than laparoscopic procedures and 46% lower than open surgery. However, some trade-offs exist—robotic surgeries typically require longer operating times, exceeding laparoscopic procedures by approximately 18 minutes and open surgery by 41 minutes.
Cost differences and infrastructure needs
The financial implications of robotic surgery are complex. The average hospitalization cost for laparoscopic cases was USD 16,000 compared to USD 18,300 for robotic-assisted procedures. This cost gap has actually widened over time, from USD 1,600 in 2012 to USD 2,600 in 2019.
Initial investment costs remain substantial. Healthcare facilities need between USD 1-2.5 million to purchase a robotic system, plus annual maintenance fees of USD 100,000-200,000. Consequently, a single robotic system must support numerous procedures to justify the expense.
A cost analysis comparing minimally invasive approaches found that laparoscopic surgeries had an average total cost of USD 8,955, compared with USD 15,319 for robotic-assisted procedures. This translated to an average contribution margin (reimbursement minus costs) of USD 10,676 for laparoscopic versus USD 6,630 for robotic-assisted surgeries.
When robotic surgery may not be better
Although robotic technology continues advancing, certain scenarios still favor traditional approaches. Emergent cases often benefit from the immediacy of open surgery, whereas robotic procedures require longer setup and preparation. Henceforth, patients requiring urgent intervention may not be optimal candidates for robotic approaches.
Complex anatomical situations, including dense adhesions from prior surgeries or unexpected anatomical variations, may necessitate either open approaches or surgeon expertise beyond the capabilities of robotic assistance alone. Forthwith, these cases highlight why maintaining proficiency in all surgical approaches remains essential.
Cost-effectiveness analysis reveals that robotics may not be justifiable for all procedure types. In bariatric surgeries, the average contribution margin was USD 14,149 for laparoscopic procedures, compared with only USD 6,165 for robot-assisted procedures. Given these economic considerations alongside modest clinical benefits, the value proposition of robotic surgery varies considerably across procedure types, patient characteristics, and institutional volume.
In conclusion, the data suggest that each surgical approach—open, laparoscopic, and robotic—maintains distinct advantages and limitations. The optimal choice depends on careful consideration of patient factors, procedure complexity, institutional resources, and surgeon experience rather than assuming newer technology automatically delivers superior results.
Training gaps: Are new surgeons losing open surgery skills?
Contemporary surgical training faces a profound challenge: as minimally invasive approaches dominate, residents receive drastically reduced exposure to traditional techniques. This evolving landscape raises critical questions about whether future surgeons will possess adequate open procedure skills when needed most.
Decline in open surgery exposure during residency
The statistics paint a concerning picture. Between 2000 and 2018, the average number of open procedures performed by general surgery residents decreased by 34.9%, dropping from 135.5 to 88.2 cases per resident. Simultaneously, laparoscopic case volumes skyrocketed by 462%, increasing from 23.6 to 135.6 procedures. This shift has created an imbalanced training environment, with certain open operations experiencing particularly steep declines:
- Open anti-reflux operations fell by 79.4% (from 3.4 to 0.7 cases)
- Open appendectomies decreased by 77.9% (from 30.7 to 6.8 cases)
- Open splenectomies declined by 53.3% (from 3.0 to 1.4 cases)
- Open colectomies reduced by 27.5% (from 46.1 to 33.4 cases)
Currently, this trend extends beyond general surgery. Vascular surgery residents now perform only 5-10 open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs during their entire training period. Work hour restrictions have certainly contributed to this problem, with UK trainees’ operating hours theoretically reduced from approximately 30,000 to just 6,000 hours between junior and consultant status.
Why simulation alone may not be enough
Simulation has emerged as a partial solution, allowing residents to train surgical maneuvers outside the operating room. Nevertheless, simulation presents inherent limitations. Firstly, it lacks the contextual complexity of actual surgery; people behave differently in simulated environments versus “the real thing”. Essentially, simulation helps enhance psychomotor skills and hand-eye coordination, but cannot replace the requisite clinical experience a trainee surgeon needs on the “shop floor”.
Cost represents another barrier to effective simulation. Starting a simulation laboratory requires approximately USD 1 million, with ongoing maintenance expenses that many institutions—particularly in resource-limited settings—cannot afford. Furthermore, simulation without proper mentorship may lead trainees to adopt incorrect habits, underscoring the need for certified training programs with standardized progression.
The case for open procedure minimums
The reduction in open surgical experience creates a precarious situation in which newly trained surgeons may lack the technical skills to safely perform open procedures when necessary. This gap becomes particularly problematic when minimally invasive procedures must be converted to open procedures due to complications or technical difficulties—a scenario that requires immediate competence with traditional techniques.
Correspondingly, some programs have begun implementing solutions. Cleveland Clinic vascular surgery residents perform 60-80 aortic surgeries annually during training, including 20-30 primary open AAA repairs. Three potential approaches merit consideration: establishing minimum-case requirements for open procedures, developing a formalized curriculum using cadavers or simulators when patient volume is insufficient, and cultivating regional referrals to high-volume centers.
Organ transplantation and procurement may offer another untapped resource for valuable exposure to open surgical techniques. Without such interventions, we risk producing surgeons well-versed in minimally invasive surgery but potentially dangerous in urgent settings requiring open surgery skills—a concerning prospect for patient safety.
Ergonomics and skill: why open surgery still matters
Beyond clinical outcomes and training considerations, the physical mechanics of surgical techniques reveal a crucial dimension in the open-versus-minimally-invasive surgery debate. The biomechanics of each approach directly impact surgeon performance, comfort, and career longevity—factors often overlooked in technology-focused discussions.
Open surgery allows natural hand movements.
The fundamental open surgery definition includes unrestricted manual dexterity that minimally invasive techniques cannot fully replicate. During open procedure surgery, surgeons use multiple degrees of freedom, enabling dynamic movements within a three-dimensional space that are directly aligned with the target organ. This natural hand positioning permits intuitive tissue manipulation—an advantage impossible to quantify yet immediately apparent to practitioners switching between surgical modalities.
Furthermore, direct physical contact with tissues provides immediate tactile feedback, thereby enhancing surgical precision. Contrary to laparoscopy, where surgeons must rely solely on visual cues, open surgery maintains the surgeon’s natural hand-eye coordination, developed over years of everyday manual activities.
Laparoscopy has a steeper learning curve.
Research comparing learning trajectories between surgical approaches reveals telling patterns. When inexperienced subjects receive equal training in both laparoscopic and open techniques, they typically demonstrate deficiencies in finer dissection, identification of correct tissue planes, and two-dimensional perception during laparoscopic work. These fundamental challenges persist even after standard training periods.
Moreover, laparoscopic instruments have only four degrees of freedom: rotational, up/down, left/right, and in/out. This limitation requires surgeons to develop entirely new muscle memory patterns, essentially relearning basic surgical skills through a constrained interface. The physical toll proves substantial, with 87% of surgeons who regularly perform minimally invasive operations reporting work-related symptoms and injuries directly connected to this approach.
Operating laparoscopically is fundamentally non-intuitive, creating a distorted spatial recognition system that can affect performance over time. The physiological impact extends beyond learning difficulties—laparoscopy demands greater concentration than open surgery, placing increased cognitive load on practitioners during already complex procedures.
Robotics may level the field—but at a cost.
Robotic systems like da Vinci®, Hugo™ RAS, and Versius® offer significant ergonomic improvements over conventional laparoscopy. These platforms allow surgeons to operate from a seated position at a console, controlling robotic instruments with minimal physical strain. This ergonomic advantage reduces fatigue, potentially enhancing focus and precision throughout lengthy procedures.
Nevertheless, robotic surgery hasn’t eliminated all ergonomic concerns. Approximately 45% of surveyed surgeons still report experiencing strain during robotic operations, with over 70% specifically noting neck discomfort. The anterior tilt of the head while looking into the console appears responsible for increased trapezius muscle activation during these procedures.
From a financial perspective, the ergonomic benefits come at substantial expense. Robotic systems require initial investments between $1-2.5 million, plus annual maintenance fees of $100,000-200,000. Additionally, thorough training remains essential—surgeons must invest considerable time mastering robotic interfaces, understanding three-dimensional imaging systems, and developing new technical skills that differ significantly from conventional methods.
When open surgery is the better choice
Deciding when to utilize traditional open techniques versus minimally invasive approaches requires careful clinical judgment based on patient-specific factors and situational demands. Despite the advantages of minimally invasive techniques, several scenarios exist where the open surgery definition—involving direct access through larger incisions—becomes the optimal or necessary choice.
Emergencies with unexpected complications
Time-critical emergencies often require traditional open surgical procedures for immediate intervention. In trauma cases or severe internal bleeding, the direct visualization offered by open surgery provides unobstructed views essential for rapid assessment and treatment. Moreover, conversion rates for emergent laparoscopic surgeries treating acute abdomen reach 38.2%, indicating the inherent limitations of minimally invasive approaches in crises. Occasionally, surgeries beginning laparoscopically must convert to open due to unexpected findings, uncontrolled bleeding, or equipment failures.
Cases with dense scar tissue or complex anatomy
Patients with extensive adhesions from previous surgeries present unique challenges for minimally invasive techniques. Whenever substantial scar tissue exists, the direct access of open surgery vs minimally invasive surgery becomes advantageous for safe dissection. Likewise, operations involving large tumors or delicate anatomical structures benefit from the unrestricted field of vision that traditional approaches provide. In mechanical small bowel obstruction cases, conversion rates from laparoscopic to open reach an alarming 51.9%, mainly due to obscured views from intestinal distension and adhesions.
Patients who can’t tolerate insufflation
Certain physiological conditions contraindicate the pneumoperitoneum required for laparoscopy. Patients with hemodynamic instability or severe cardiac and pulmonary diseases may experience dangerous complications from abdominal insufflation. Similarly, those in Grade 2 or 3 shock require traditional open procedures, which provide better access and more thorough monitoring. Identification of these patients preoperatively helps avoid dangerous mid-procedure conversions and associated complications.
Conclusion
Despite rapid technological advancements in minimally invasive techniques, open surgery remains an essential component of modern surgical practice. The evidence presented throughout this article demonstrates that rather than viewing surgical approaches as competing modalities, they should be considered complementary tools within a surgeon’s repertoire. Open procedures offer irreplaceable advantages—tactile feedback, direct visualization, and unrestricted access—that prove invaluable in specific clinical contexts.
Data comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches reveals nuanced differences across outcomes, costs, and applications. While minimally invasive techniques generally demonstrate reduced hospital stays and faster recovery, open surgery continues to excel in complex anatomical situations, emergency scenarios, and cases involving extensive adhesions. Though robotic systems address some ergonomic challenges of laparoscopy, they introduce substantial financial burdens that may not justify their use across all procedure types.
The declining exposure to open techniques during surgical training represents a concerning trend. Accordingly, this reduction creates a potential skill gap that simulation alone cannot bridge. Future surgeons must develop proficiency in both traditional and minimally invasive approaches to provide optimal patient care, especially when faced with cases that require conversion from laparoscopic to open techniques.
Undoubtedly, the best surgeons will maintain competence across the full spectrum of surgical approaches. Patient safety demands nothing less than surgeons capable of selecting the most appropriate technique based on individual circumstances rather than technological preference or training limitations. Therefore, surgical education must evolve to ensure trainees receive sufficient experience with open procedures, potentially through established minimums, specialized rotations, or cadaveric training opportunities.
The surgical community stands at a crossroads. Embracing technological progress while preserving fundamental skills represents the path forward. After all, the goal remains constant: delivering the safest, most effective care tailored to each patient’s unique needs. The future of surgery lies not in abandoning traditional approaches but in thoughtfully integrating both open and minimally invasive techniques into comprehensive surgical practice.
Key Takeaways
While minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized modern medicine, open surgery remains irreplaceable in specific clinical scenarios and offers unique advantages that technology cannot fully replicate.
- Open surgery provides irreplaceable tactile feedback and direct visualization that enables surgeons to detect subtle abnormalities and respond immediately to unexpected complications during procedures.
- Emergencies, complex anatomy, and certain patient conditions favor open approaches – trauma cases, dense scar tissue, and patients unable to tolerate insufflation often require traditional techniques for optimal outcomes.
- Surgical training faces a critical gap as residents receive 35% fewer open surgery cases since 2000, potentially creating dangerous skill deficits when conversion from minimally invasive to open becomes necessary.
- Cost-effectiveness varies significantly between approaches – while robotic surgery shows clinical benefits, it costs $2,600 more per case than laparoscopic and requires $1-2.5 million initial investment plus ongoing maintenance.
- The future of surgery requires maintaining proficiency across all approaches rather than abandoning traditional techniques, as patient safety depends on surgeons selecting the most appropriate method for each unique clinical situation.
The key insight is that surgical excellence lies not in choosing the newest technology, but in thoughtfully matching the surgical approach to patient needs, anatomical complexity, and clinical circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions:
FAQs
Q1. When is open surgery preferred over minimally invasive techniques? Open surgery is often the better choice in emergencies, cases involving dense scar tissue or complex anatomy, and for patients who cannot tolerate the insufflation required for laparoscopic procedures. It provides direct access and visualization, which can be crucial in time-sensitive or complicated cases.
Q2. What are the unique advantages of open surgery? Open surgery offers irreplaceable tactile feedback and direct visualization, allowing surgeons to detect subtle abnormalities and respond immediately to unexpected complications. It also provides unrestricted access to the surgical site, which can be essential in complex procedures or emergencies.
Q3. How does the cost of robotic surgery compare to other approaches? Robotic surgery typically costs more than laparoscopic and open procedures. On average, it’s about $2,600 more expensive per case than laparoscopic surgery. Additionally, the initial investment for a robotic system can range from $1 to $ 2.5 million, with annual maintenance costs of $100,000 to $200,000.
Q4. Are new surgeons receiving adequate training in open surgical techniques? There’s growing concern about a training gap in open surgery skills. Since 2000, surgical residents have experienced a 35% decrease in open surgical cases, potentially leading to skill deficits. This trend has sparked discussions about implementing minimum-case requirements for open procedures during residency training.
Q5. How do outcomes compare between robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgeries? Outcomes vary depending on the specific procedure and patient factors. Generally, minimally invasive techniques (both robotic and laparoscopic) are associated with shorter hospital stays and faster recovery times. However, open surgery may still be superior in certain complex cases or emergencies. The choice of approach should be tailored to each patient’s unique circumstances.
References:
- Alemi, A. S., Sastry, R. A., & Vemulapalli, P. (2020). A comparison of outcomes and costs between robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery across major surgical specialties. Annals of Surgery, 272(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004065
- Anderson, O., Davis, R., Hanna, G. B., & Vincent, C. A. (2012). Surgical adverse events: A systematic review. American Journal of Surgery, 204(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.009
- Antoniou, S. A., Antoniou, G. A., Koch, O. O., Pointner, R., & Granderath, F. A. (2012). Laparoscopic surgery: A historical perspective. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 18(18), 2293–2298. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i18.2293
- Ballantyne, G. H., & Moll, F. (2003). The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: The virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surgical Clinics of North America, 83(6), 1293–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00136-0
- Chang, E. I., & Galvez, M. G. (2021). The role of open surgery in the modern surgical era: Balancing technology with tactile skill. Annals of Surgery Open, 2(3), e075. https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000075
- Cirocchi, R., et al. (2022). Conversion from laparoscopic to open colorectal surgery: Incidence, causes, and outcomes. Surgical Endoscopy, 36(2), 1405–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08402-0
- da Vinci Surgical System. (2023). Intuitive Surgical: Clinical overview and technology report. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/products-and-services/da-vinci
- Donahue, T. R., et al. (2018). Declining exposure to open procedures in general surgery residency: A concerning trend. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 226(3), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.11.020
- Guy, M. S., et al. (2020). Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy, 34(10), 4351–4365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07354-1
- Hansen, M., & Gawande, A. A. (2021). When open surgery is still best: Clinical scenarios for traditional approaches. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(15), 1428–1436. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2031064
- Melamed, A., et al. (2018). Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(20), 1905–1914. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1806395
- National Bowel Cancer Audit. (2019). Annual Report 2018: An audit of colorectal cancer care in England and Wales. NHS Digital. https://www.nboca.org.uk/reports/annual-report-2018/
- Palep, J. H. (2009). Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.51312
- Roberts, K. E. (2010). Simulation in surgical training: Where do we stand? Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 14(3), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680810X12924466006683
- Zendejas, B., Cook, D. A., Bingener, J., Huebner, M., Dunn, W. F., & Farley, D. R. (2011). Simulation-based mastery learning improves patient outcomes in laparoscopic surgery. Annals of Surgery, 254(3), 502–509. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31822c6994
Video Section
Check out our extensive video library (see channel for our latest videos)
Recent Articles
