Literature DB >> 17320533

A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and hand-sewn intestinal sutured anastomoses performed by residents.

Slawomir J Marecik1, Vivek Chaudhry, Azam Jan, Russell K Pearl, John J Park, Leela M Prasad.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery offers all the advantages of laparoscopy with additional increased accuracy. The use of robotic surgery has increased in the past 5 years. It has proven particularly useful in complex surgical procedures such as intracorporeal intestinal anastomosis. As the prevalence of robotic surgery increases, so will the need for residents to be able to perform surgery using the robotic system. Our goal was to compare hand-sewn, laparoscopic, and robotic suturing techniques performed by midlevel residents using a porcine intestinal model.
METHODS: Fifteen residents unfamiliar with the robotic suturing technique participated in performing an initial hand-sewn suture line and then were randomized with cross-over to laparoscopic or robotic suturing. Completion time, leak pressure, number of sutures per cm, and difficulty level were assessed.
RESULTS: The mean leak pressure for hand-sewn, laparoscopic, and robotic suturing was 9.5, 3.2, and 11.4 mm Hg, respectively. The laparoscopic group had 6 and the robotic group had 1 suture line that was inadequate for testing. Suture breakage was common in the robotic group. The anastomosis was considered hard by 92% in the laparoscopic group versus 17% in the robotic group. The time it took to complete 1 cm of anastomosis was .9, 8.7, and 8.3 minutes for hand-sewn, laparoscopic, and robotic suturing, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The robotic suture line performed by midlevel residents was superior to laparoscopy, although the time for anastomosis was equivalent.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17320533     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.09.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  18 in total

Review 1.  Status of robotic assistance--a less traumatic and more accurate minimally invasive surgery?

Authors:  H G Kenngott; L Fischer; F Nickel; J Rom; J Rassweiler; B P Müller-Stich
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 2.  Staple line reinforcement in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: does it actually make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  George A Giannopoulos; Nikolaos E Tzanakis; George E Rallis; Stamatis P Efstathiou; Christos Tsigris; Nikolaos I Nikiteas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries.

Authors:  Gyusung I Lee; Mija R Lee; Tameka Clanton; Tamera Clanton; Erica Sutton; Adrian E Park; Michael R Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes.

Authors:  R Gamagami; E Dickens; A Gonzalez; L D'Amico; C Richardson; J Rabaza; R Kolachalam
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis.

Authors:  Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Surgical training in robotic surgery: surgical experience of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal herniorrhaphy with and without resident participation.

Authors:  Jessica Gonzalez-Hernandez; Purvi Prajapati; Gerald Ogola; Ryan D Burkart; Lam D Le
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-01-06

7.  3D straight-stick laparoscopy versus 3D robotics for task performance in novice surgeons: a randomised crossover trial.

Authors:  Fevzi Shakir; Haider Jan; Andrew Kent
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy: a single surgeon's experience.

Authors:  Henry J Lujan; Victor H Maciel; Roderick Romero; Gustavo Plasencia
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-10-13

9.  Robotic duodenojejunostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome in a teenager.

Authors:  Andreana Bütter; Shiva Jayaraman; Christopher Schlachta
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-09-17

10.  A lifelike patient simulator for teaching robotic colorectal surgery: how to acquire skills for robotic rectal dissection.

Authors:  S J Marecik; L M Prasad; J J Park; R K Pearl; R J Evenhouse; A Shah; K Khan; H Abcarian
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.