Literature DB >> 14760597

The efficacy of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic vascular anastomoses in an experimental model.

D Nio1, R Balm, S Maartense, M Guijt, W A Bemelman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted surgery is thought to facilitate complex laparoscopic movements, enhancing advanced laparoscopic procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of robotic assistance for laparoscopic vascular surgery.
DESIGN: Experimental study using prosthetic conduits in a laparoscopic training box.
METHODS: Two surgeons each performed 40 laparoscopic vascular anastomoses alternating with and without robotic assistance. A Zeus-Aesop surgical Robotic system trade mark with 3-D visualisation was used. Each surgeon made 40 anastomoses in total, using different prostheses (5 mm PTFE and 16 mm Dacron) and suture material (Prolene and PTFE). A time-action analysis was performed to evaluate surgical performance. Primary efficacy parameters were quality and leakage of the anastomosis, total time and total number of actions.
RESULTS: Equal quality scores and anastomotic leakage were achieved with both techniques. Robotic assistance resulted in significant longer suture and knot tying time and significant more actions were needed compared to the manual laparoscopic procedures. Significant more failures occurred during the robot-assisted procedures.
CONCLUSION: In this study, robotic (Zeus-Aesop) assistance did not improve the laparoscopic performance of the surgeon whilst making vascular anastomoses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14760597     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2003.12.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg        ISSN: 1078-5884            Impact factor:   7.069


  8 in total

1.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Authors:  M R Ali; B Bhaskerrao; B M Wolfe
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-12-30       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Laparoscopic vascular anastomoses: does robotic (Zeus-Aesop) assistance help to overcome the learning curve?

Authors:  D Nio; W A Bemelman; R Balm; D A Legemate
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-05-26       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A consensus document on robotic surgery.

Authors:  D M Herron; M Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Development and evaluation of a training module for the clinical introduction of the da Vinci robotic system in visceral and vascular surgery.

Authors:  A Mehrabi; C L Yetimoglu; A Nickkholgh; A Kashfi; P Kienle; L Konstantinides; M R Ahmadi; H Fonouni; P Schemmer; H Friess; M M Gebhard; M W Büchler; J Schmidt; C N Gutt
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Learning curve using robotic surgery.

Authors:  Sanjeev Kaul; Nikhil L Shah; Mani Menon
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.862

6.  Comparison of surgical skills in laparoscopic and robotic tasks between experienced surgeons and novices in laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study.

Authors:  Hye Jin Kim; Gyu-Seog Choi; Jun Seok Park; Soo Yeun Park
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2014-04-25

Review 7.  Robot-assisted techniques in vascular and endovascular surgery.

Authors:  A Püschel; C Schafmayer; J Groß
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Robotic surgery versus laparoscopy; a comparison between two robotic systems and laparoscopy.

Authors:  Christopher Nguan; Andrew Girvan; Patrick P Luke
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2008-01-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.