Skip to content

To Evaluate the Performance and Efficiency of Robotic Surgery in Children and Adults

To Evaluate the Performance and Efficiency of Robotic Surgery in Children and Adults

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03274050
Acronym
PECRoP
Enrollment
16000
Registered
2017-09-06
Start date
2018-02-28
Completion date
2029-08-01
Last updated
2026-08-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Surgery

Keywords

robot, surgery, pediatry (0-20 years included), adults

Brief summary

Robotic minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adopted for a wide variety of surgical procedures in adult patients across a broad spectrum of surgical specialties. This has occurred despite the high costs and uncertain benefits of surgical robots. In contrast, Children's Hospitals and pediatric surgical disciplines have been much slower to embrace the surgical robot. Many children's hospitals do not even possess a surgical robot, and many of those that do borrow them from the adult operating room within the same medical facility. Since the first case of robotic minimally invasive surgery in children in 2000, robotic procedures have been slowly adopted by select pediatric surgical specialists. Advocates of robotic minimally invasive surgical systems add many useful features that include improved dexterity, motion scaling, tremor filtration, greater optical magnification (up to 10x), stereoscopic vision, operator-controlled camera movement, and the elimination of the fulcrum effect when compared to conventional laparoscopy. The wristed laparoscopic instruments used in robotic surgery provide seven degrees of freedom. For the surgeon, these features may allow for more precise dissection with increased magnification and visibility. The intuitive controls of the robot are purported as providing the ability to perform laparoscopic procedures in an "open" fashion. In pediatric surgical procedures, these technical abilities may have the potential to surpass the physical capabilities of human performance in the tight operative fields encountered in children. This study aims to evaluate the clinical safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery in both pediatric and adult patients. Robotic surgery was developed to overcome key limitations of conventional laparoscopy, including 2D visualization, limited instrument mobility, poor ergonomics, and long learning curves. The trial will assess clinical outcomes, postoperative pain, length of stay, return to daily activities, access to minimally invasive surgery, and the impact of robotic surgery on surgical training. Specific indications, such as pyeloplasty, will also be compared with open and conventional laparoscopic approaches.

Detailed description

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has transformed surgical practice since the 1980s, offering reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. However, conventional laparoscopy is limited by rigid instruments, 2D imaging, non-intuitive motion, and challenging ergonomics, resulting in long learning curves, especially in pediatric surgery where operative spaces are smaller. Robot-assisted surgery, introduced in 1999 with the Da Vinci system, was designed to overcome these limitations by providing 3D high-definition visualization, articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, tremor filtration, intuitive movements, surgeon-controlled camera operation, and improved ergonomics. Its dual-console configuration also enhances surgical training. Despite widespread adoption in adults, pediatric use remains limited. This multicenter study will evaluate robot-assisted surgery across several specialties (urology, gynecology, visceral surgery, thoracic surgery, pediatric surgery, and ENT), in accordance with CE-marked indications. The study will assess: clinical outcomes and quality of life, postoperative pain, length of stay, and return to daily activities, access to MIS for patients with comorbidities or complex multidisciplinary needs, reduction of the learning curve compared with laparoscopy, benefits for resident and fellow training, and, for pyeloplasty, comparison with open and laparoscopic techniques. Interim analyses will be performed and may generate hypotheses for future research.

Interventions

None listed

Sponsors

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Lead SponsorOTHER
Intuitive Surgical
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
URC-CIC Paris Descartes Necker Cochin
CollaboratorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CONTROL
Time perspective
OTHER

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

: * child or adult * with an indication for a robotic surgery * non-opposition of patient or non-opposition of parents for minor patient

Exclusion criteria

: * anatomic or anesthetic contraindication for the mini-invasive surgery

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Per and post-surgery complication6 monthsper and post-surgery complication (Clavien-Dindo score)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Post-surgery pain with analgesic prescription6 months
Resection quality (R0) of oncologic surgery6 months
Functional results according to the surgery indication6 months
Quality of life (SF-36)At the inclusion visit (baseline) and 6 months36-items Short Form health survey
Health survey (EQ-5D-5L)At the inclusion visit (baseline) and 6 monthsEach dimension in the EQ-5D-5L has five response levels: no problems (Level 1); slight; moderate; severe; and extreme problems (Level 5)
The Saint-George's hospital Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)At the inclusion visit (baseline) and 6 months0 indicates best health and 100 indicates worst health
Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I)At the inclusion visit (baseline) and 6 months1-question assessment designed to evaluate the patient's impression of improvement since surgery- PGI-I score: 1 = very much better; 2 = much better; 3 = a little better; 4 = no change; 5 = a little worse; 6 = much worse; 7 = very much worse
Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)At the inclusion visit (baseline) and 6 monthsThe FSFI is a validated 19-item self-administered questionnaire assessing female sexual function across six domains (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain) during the previous 4 weeks. Domain scores are weighted according to the FSFI scoring algorithm and summed to generate a total score ranging from 2 to 36, with higher scores indicating better sexual function.
Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12)At the inclusion visit (baseline) and 6 monthsThe PISQ-12 is a validated, disease-specific, self-administered questionnaire designed to assess sexual function in women with pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence. The questionnaire consists of 12 items evaluating three domains: behavioral-emotive aspects, physical factors, and partner-related factors affecting sexual function. Responses are summed to generate a total score, with higher scores indicating better sexual function.
Frequency and percentage of intervention with robot in each speciality6 months
Duration of activity of the operating block6 months
Average duration of anaesthesia6 months
Average duration of robotic surgery and docking6 months
Duration of intervention by speciality (learning curve)6 months
Frequency and percentage of conversion to open-procedure6 months
Post surgery pain (Evendol pain scale)6 months
Prescription of analgesic6 months
Duration of hospitalization6 months
Cost of robotic surgery by indication, tools and supplies6 months
Duration of post surgery work stoppage (activ patient)6 months
Duration before returning to normal activity (other patient)6 months
Difference in average costs per patients (in €) divided by the difference in post operative complications using the Clavien Dindo scale6 months

Countries

France

Contacts

CONTACTThomas BLANC, MD, PhD
thomas.blanc@aphp.fr01 44 49 41 53
CONTACTSarah BOUCHARD
solimda.sotoubere@aphp.fr01 42 19 28 79
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORThomas BLANC, MD; PhD

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

STUDY_CHAIRMorgane ROUPRET, MD, PhD

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 11, 2026