Literature DB >> 22508668

Perioperative risk assessment in robotic general surgery: lessons learned from 884 cases at a single institution.

Nicolas C Buchs1, Pietro Addeo, Francesco M Bianco, Veronica Gorodner, Subhashini M Ayloo, Enrique F Elli, José Oberholzer, Enrico Benedetti, Pier C Giulianotti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with morbidity and mortality following the use of robotics in general surgery.
DESIGN: Case series.
SETTING: University of Illinois at Chicago. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Eight hundred eighty-four consecutive patients who underwent a robotic procedure in our institution between April 2007 and July 2010. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Perioperative morbidity and mortality.
RESULTS: During the study period, 884 patients underwent a robotic procedure. The conversion rate was 2%, the mortality rate was 0.5%, and the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 16.7%. The reoperation rate was 2.4%. Mean length of stay was 4.5 days (range, 0.2-113 days). In univariate analysis, several factors were associated with increased morbidity and included either patient-related (cardiovascular and renal comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] <30, age ≥ 70 years, and malignant disease) or procedure-related (blood loss ≥ 500 mL, transfusion, multiquadrant operation, and advanced procedure) factors. In multivariate analysis, advanced procedure, multiquadrant surgery, malignant disease, body mass index of less than 30, hypertension, and transfusion were factors significantly associated with a higher risk for complications. American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or greater, age 70 years or older, cardiovascular comorbidity, and blood loss of 500 mL or more were also associated with increased risk for mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the robotic approach for general surgery can be achieved safely with low morbidity and mortality. Several risk factors have been identified as independent causes for higher morbidity and mortality. These can be used to identify patients at risk before and during the surgery and, in the future, to develop a scoring system for the use of robotic general surgery

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22508668     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  10 in total

1.  Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lukasz Filip Grochola; Christopher Soll; Adrian Zehnder; Roland Wyss; Pascal Herzog; Stefan Breitenstein
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Risk factors for postoperative complications in robotic general surgery.

Authors:  Giovanni Fantola; Laurent Brunaud; Phi-Linh Nguyen-Thi; Adeline Germain; Ahmet Ayav; Laurent Bresler
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-09-30

3.  Robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for super obese patients: a comparative study.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Gilles Chassot; Francesco Volonte; Pascale Koutny-Fong; Monika E Hagen; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.129

4.  Impact of robotic general surgery course on participants' surgical practice.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Monika E Hagen; Philippe Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Learning tools and simulation in robotic surgery: state of the art.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Philippe Morel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgical simulation curriculum.

Authors:  G Fantola; C Perrenot; R Frisoni; A Germain; A Ayav; L Bresler; L Brunaud
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.129

7.  Laparoscopic versus robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: lessons and long-term follow-up learned from a large prospective monocentric study.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; Philippe Morel; Dan E Azagury; Minoa Jung; Gilles Chassot; Olivier Huber; Monika E Hagen; François Pugin
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.129

8.  Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience.

Authors:  Joshua S Winder; Ryan M Juza; Jennifer Sasaki; Ann M Rogers; Eric M Pauli; Randy S Haluck; Stephanie J Estes; Jerome R Lyn-Sue
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-03-19

9.  Acquisition of robotic surgical skills does not require laparoscopic training: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Roberto Vanin Pinto Ribeiro; João Maximiliano; Guilherme Barreiro; Olavo Haas de Souza Gastal; Pauline Simas Machado; Luciano Paludo Marcelino; Henrique Rasia Bosi; Eduardo Madalosso Zanin; Leandro Totti Cavazzola
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 3.453

10.  Robot-assisted single-site compared with laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lukasz Filip Grochola; Christopher Soll; Adrian Zehnder; Roland Wyss; Pascal Herzog; Stefan Breitenstein
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.