Literature DB >> 16192731

Robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a four-year single-center experience.

Jelle P Ruurda1, Werner A Draaisma, Richard van Hillegersberg, Inne H M Borel Rinkes, Hein G Gooszen, Lucas W M Janssen, Rogier K J Simmermacher, Ivo A M J Broeders.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic systems were introduced in the late 1990s with the objective to overcome the technical limitations of endoscopic surgery. In this prospective cohort study the potential safety, feasibility, pitfalls and challenges of robotic systems in gastrointestinal endoscopic surgery are assessed and our vision on future perspectives is presented.
METHODS: Between August 2000 and December 2004, 208 procedures were performed with support of the Intuitive Surgical da Vincitrade mark robotic system. We started with cholecystectomies (40) and Nissen fundoplications (41) to gain experience with robot-assisted surgery. In the following years more complex procedures were carried out, i.e. colorectal procedures (7), type III/IV paraesophageal hernia repair (32), redo Nissen fundoplications (9), Heller myotomies (24), esophageal resections (22), rectopexies (16) and aortobifemoral bypasses (3).
RESULTS: The median robotic set-up time was 13 min, and 7 min in the last 50 procedures. The median operating time for the total of procedures was 120 min (45-420) and the median blood loss was 30 ml (0-800). Fourteen procedures were converted to open surgery (6.7%). Equipment-related problems, such as start-up failures and positioning difficulties of the robotic arms, were encountered in 11 cases (5.3%). Postoperative complications were seen in 11 patients (11/176, 6.3%) after robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures. Pulmonary complications occurred in 11 patients, cardiac in 3, anastomic leakage in 3, chylous leakage in 3 and vocal cord paralysis in 3 after thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. One patient died 12 days after esophageal resection (0.5%).
CONCLUSION: During the implementation of this robotic system, we experienced an obvious learning curve, particularly with regard to the positioning of the robot cart and communication between the surgeon and operating team. After 4 years, we have experienced that the merits of the current generation of this technology probably is preserved to complex endoscopic procedures with delicate dissection and suturing. In the nearby future we will focus on the treatment of motility disorders and malignancies of the esophagus and stomach. The position of the robot in the endoscopic operating room will have to be clarified by the outcome of prospective research. Furthermore, priorities have to be acclaimed on technical sophistication and cost reduction of these systems. Copyright (c) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16192731     DOI: 10.1159/000088628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Surg        ISSN: 0253-4886            Impact factor:   2.588


  33 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  Carsten N Gutt; Vasile V Bintintan; Jörg Köninger; Beat P Müller-Stich; Michael Reiter; Markus W Büchler
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 2.  Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: report of the first case in Hong Kong and China with an updated literature review.

Authors:  Simon Siu-Man Ng; Janet Fung-Yee Lee; Raymond Ying-Chang Yiu; Jimmy Chak-Man Li; Sophie Sok-Fei Hon
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Early robotic experience with paraesophageal hernia repair and Nissen fundoplication: short-term outcomes.

Authors:  Ward J Dunnican; T Paul Singh; Gloria G Guptill; Michael G Doorly; Ashar Ata
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2008-03-29

Review 4.  The role of surgical simulation and the learning curve in robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Reem Al Bareeq; Shiva Jayaraman; Bob Kiaii; Christopher Schlachta; John D Denstedt; Stephen E Pautler
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2008-03-29

5.  Getting started with robotics in general surgery with cholecystectomy: the Canadian experience.

Authors:  Shiva Jayaraman; Ward Davies; Christopher M Schlachta
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.089

Review 6.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; George A Antoniou; Oliver O Koch; Rudolf Pointner; Frank A Granderath
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-08-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery.

Authors:  Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA).

Authors:  Shawn Tsuda; Dmitry Oleynikov; Jon Gould; Dan Azagury; Bryan Sandler; Matthew Hutter; Sharona Ross; Eric Haas; Fred Brody; Richard Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease.

Authors:  H Hande Aydinli; Marissa Anderson; Amanda Hambrecht; Mitchell A Bernstein; Alexis L Grucela
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-07-28

Review 10.  Instrument Failures for the da Vinci Surgical System: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE Database Study.

Authors:  Diana C W Friedman; Thomas S Lendvay; Blake Hannaford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.