Literature DB >> 21516500

The use of robotics in pediatric surgery: my initial experience.

Juan I Camps1.   

Abstract

Robotic assisted minimal invasive surgery (RMIS) is a new resource popular in some surgical specialties but not yet in pediatric surgery. There are numerous advantages of robotic surgical technology in adult patients well documented in the literature. The purpose of this study is to define the feasibility, safety, and benefits of RMIS in pediatric patients in my initial learning experience. In a period of 24 months, all consecutive abdominal RMIS were reviewed. Chart revision was conducted retrospectively. Demographic data were collected in each patient. Other data reviewed were indications for surgery, surgical procedures, complication rate, and conversion rate to open procedure. Four arms robotic equipment was used in all cases with 3 (5 mm) reusable robotic ports and a single (12 mm) disposable port. A total of 102 consecutive abdominal RMIS were performed in 77 pediatric patients. All cases were performed by the same pediatric surgeon in a teaching institution. The average patient age was 6.2 years (ranged from 4 months to 18 years) with 16 patients <1 year of age. The smallest patient was 4 kg. No cases required conversion to open technique. However, one case was converted to laparoscopy because of mesenteric bleeding. There were five intraoperative complications in three patients: minor bleeding (2), suture orogastric tube (1), and gastric opening (2) with repair. Postoperative complications were noted in four patients: mild dysphagia (2) and Nissen wrap breakdown (2). Although the use of RMIS in pediatric patients is still controversial, it is feasible and safe to perform robotic surgery in children with a low complication rate. In addition, excellent visualization with outstanding maneuverability of instruments is of great benefit. These benefits may offset the increased cost of robotic technology especially in technically complex surgical cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21516500     DOI: 10.1007/s00383-011-2901-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int        ISSN: 0179-0358            Impact factor:   1.827


  18 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Limited value of haptics in virtual reality laparoscopic cholecystectomy training.

Authors:  Jonathan R Thompson; Anthony C Leonard; Charles R Doarn; Matt J Roesch; Timothy J Broderick
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices.

Authors:  Venita Chandra; Deepika Nehra; Richard Parent; Russell Woo; Rosette Reyes; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Sanjeev Dutta
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 4.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  R W Holloway; S D Patel; S Ahmad
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.360

Review 5.  Role of robotic surgery in urogynecologic surgery.

Authors:  M Louis Moy; Sharon Y Byun
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.309

6.  Robot-assisted pediatric surgery: how far can we go?

Authors:  Aayed Alqahtani; Abdullrahman Albassam; Mohammed Zamakhshary; Mohammed Shoukri; Tariq Altokhais; Ayman Aljazairi; Abdullrhman Alzahim; Mohammed Mallik; Abdullah Alshehri
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Visual-haptic adaptation is determined by relative reliability.

Authors:  Johannes Burge; Ahna R Girshick; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Paediatric robotic surgery in clinical practice: a cost analysis.

Authors:  M Anderberg; C C Kockum; E Arnbjornsson
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 2.191

9.  Robotic surgery in small children: is there room for this?

Authors:  John J Meehan
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.878

10.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery.

Authors:  Camran Nezhat; Naghmeh S Saberi; Babac Shahmohamady; Farr Nezhat
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2006 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  5 in total

1.  Education and training in pediatric robotic surgery: lessons learned from an inaugural multinational workshop.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Erik K Mayer; Juan I Camps; Lars H Olsen; Gloria Pelizzo; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi; Azad S Najmaldin
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-10-17

2.  A comparative cost analysis of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and open surgery: the necessity of investing knowledgeably.

Authors:  Giorgia Tedesco; Francesco C Faggiano; Erica Leo; Pietro Derrico; Matteo Ritrovato
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and Progressive Scholarly Acceptance analysis.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Simon J D Harley; Hani J Marcus; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Sanjeev Khurana
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-04-28

4.  A comparison of robotic surgery in children weighing above and below 15.0 kg: size does not affect surgery success.

Authors:  Quentin Ballouhey; Thierry Villemagne; Jérôme Cros; Caroline Szwarc; Karim Braik; Bernard Longis; Hubert Lardy; Laurent Fourcade
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery: Prospective Series of 186 Pediatric Surgeries.

Authors:  Mario Navarrete Arellano; Francisco Garibay González
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.418

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.