Literature DB >> 19476793

Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model.

Carlo C Passerotti1, Ana Maria A M S Passerotti, Marcos F Dall'Oglio, Katia R M Leite, Ricardo L V Nunes, Miguel Srougi, Alan B Retik, Hiep T Nguyen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is believed that robotic assistance allows for improved suture reapproximation of tissue and decreases the lengthy learning time that is needed to master laparoscopic suturing. But there have been no studies directly comparing the efficiency of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) to freehand laparoscopy (LS) and open surgery (OS). The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of the suture anastomosis of the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) using the three techniques and to evaluate their associated learning curves. STUDY
DESIGN: The operative time for dismembered pyeloplasties performed in 57 pigs by 3 inexperienced and 1 experienced surgeon using each of the techniques was measured. The anastomosis was evaluated for water tightness and patency using antegrade and retrograde urodynamic measurements immediately after surgery and 2 weeks postoperatively. The histology of the operated UPJ was also evaluated at 15 days postoperatively.
RESULTS: RALS had a shorter procedural time and less steep learning curve compared with LS. Urodynamic measurements for patency and water tightness of the UPJ were comparable to those in the OS group. But with experience, both the RALS and LS procedural times and the urodynamic measurements for water tightness and patency of the UPJ approached those of the OS group. Histologic evaluation demonstrated that there was less collagen III deposition around the operated UPJ in pigs that underwent RALS compared with LS and OS.
CONCLUSIONS: Among inexperienced surgeons, the efficiency of performing suturing using RALS is operator independent, requires less time to learn, and is better than those done by LS technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19476793     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.01.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  13 in total

1.  [Pyeloplasty - pro robotic-assisted].

Authors:  Z Akçetin; S Siemer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Surgical Approaches to Pediatric Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

Authors:  Ryan W Tubre; John M Gatti
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  [Application of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopy in ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch].

Authors:  Dong Li; Bao-Jun Wang; Xu Zhang; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2017-05-20

4.  Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty:recent developments in efficacy, outcomes, and new techniques.

Authors:  Casey A Seideman; Aditya Bagrodia; Jeffrey Gahan; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparison between pediatric and adult patients-Japanese series.

Authors:  Kentaro Mizuno; Yoshiyuki Kojima; Satoshi Kurokawa; Hideyuki Kamisawa; Hidenori Nishio; Yoshinobu Moritoki; Akihiro Nakane; Tetsuji Maruyama; Atsushi Okada; Noriyasu Kawai; Keiichi Tozawa; Kenjiro Kohri; Takahiro Yasui; Yutaro Hayashi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-08-06

Review 6.  Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Management of Adult UPJ Obstruction.

Authors:  Marshall C Strother; Phillip Mucksavage
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Surgical simulation in pediatric urologic education.

Authors:  Thomas Sean Lendvay
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Trends in the treatment of adults with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Authors:  Bruce L Jacobs; Samuel R Kaufman; Hal Morgenstern; Brent K Hollenbeck; J Stuart Wolf; John M Hollingsworth
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  Laparoscopic and robotic ureteral stenosis repair: a multi-institutional experience with a long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Riccardo Schiavina; Stefano Zaramella; Francesco Chessa; Cristian Vincenzo Pultrone; Marco Borghesi; Andrea Minervini; Andrea Cocci; Andrea Chindemi; Alessandro Antonelli; Claudio Simeone; Vincenzo Pagliarulo; Paolo Parma; Alessanrdo Samuelli; Antonio Celia; Bernardino De Concilio; Bernardo Rocco; Elisa De Lorenzis; Gaetano La Manna; Carlo Terrone; Mario Falsaperla; Donato Dente; Angelo Porreca
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-05-21

10.  [Partial nephrectomy - pro robotic assisted laparoscopic operation].

Authors:  S Nestler; F C Roos
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.