Literature DB >> 25480612

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

Quentin Ballouhey1, Thierry Villemagne, Jérôme Cros, Caroline Szwarc, Karim Braik, Bernard Longis, Hubert Lardy, Laurent Fourcade.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Initial results in pediatric surgery are encouraging, particularly in the field of pediatric urology. However, there is limited experience with its application in infants and neonates. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted surgery in two populations of children, one weighing less and one weighing more than 15.0 kg.
METHODS: A multicentric study was performed comparing the success of robotic-assisted surgery in patients who weighed less than 15.0 kg (group A) to patients heavier than 15.0 kg (group B), with a total of 178 procedures performed between January 2008 and December 2012. Data concerning the perioperative and intraoperative periods were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The success of robotic-assisted surgery was compared between group A (62 patients, 11.1 kg) and group B (116 patients, 30.2 kg), with a mean follow-up of 37 months (16-75 months). The conversion rate was superior for group A (5 vs. 2%) and involved three neonatal thoracic procedures. Focusing on three common procedures for both groups (pyeloplasty, partial nephrectomy, and fundoplication), the amount of time for set up was longer for group A (p < 0.05). We found no statistical differences in the mean total operative time and length of hospital stay. The postoperative follow-up revealed similar results for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Cautious adjustments in the patient positioning and trocar placement were necessary in a subset of this pediatric population. For these three particular procedures, with the exception of the longer set up time, the results between the two groups were comparable. These data support the feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery for small children, despite the lack of dedicated instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25480612     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3982-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  18 in total

Review 1.  Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment.

Authors:  Goedele van Haasteren; Susan Levine; Winifred Hayes
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Initiation of a pediatric robotic surgery program: institutional challenges and realistic outcomes.

Authors:  Mathew D Sorensen; Michael H Johnson; Catherine Delostrinos; Jeff B Bice; Richard W Grady; Thomas S Lendvay
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Complications of robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a single institution experience.

Authors:  Danesh Bansal; W Robert Defoor; Pramod P Reddy; Eugene A Minevich; Paul H Noh
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 4.  The first decade of robotic surgery in children.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Kunal Shetty; James Clark; Tou Pin Chang; Kumuthan Sriskandarajah; Nicholas E Gattas; Azad Najmaldin; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.545

5.  Is smaller workspace a limitation for robot performance in laparoscopy?

Authors:  A A Thakre; Y Bailly; L W Sun; F Van Meer; C K Yeung
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  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

Review 7.  Robot-assisted pediatric surgery.

Authors:  Russell Woo; David Le; Thomas M Krummel; Craig Albanese
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 8.  Robot-assisted surgery: current status evaluation in abdominal and urological pediatric surgery.

Authors:  Yann Chaussy; François Becmeur; Hubert Lardy; Didier Aubert
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.878

9.  Pediatric robotic surgery: A single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases.

Authors:  John J Meehan; Anthony Sandler
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  The feasibility of robotic urologic surgery in infants and toddlers.

Authors:  Victor Srougi; Marco Yorioka; Daniela C J Sanchez; Bulent Onal; Constance S Houck; Hiep T Nguyen
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 1.830

View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparison of 8 and 5 mm robotic instruments in small cavities : 5 or 8 mm robotic instruments for small cavities?

Authors:  Quentin Ballouhey; Pauline Clermidi; Jérôme Cros; Céline Grosos; Clémence Rosa-Arsène; Claire Bahans; François Caire; Bernard Longis; Roxane Compagnon; Laurent Fourcade
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  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

3.  Pediatric robotic surgery: issues in management-expert consensus from the Italian Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SARNePI) and the Italian Society of Pediatric Surgery (SICP).

Authors:  Simonetta Tesoro; Piergiorgio Gamba; Mirko Bertozzi; Rachele Borgogni; Fabio Caramelli; Giovanni Cobellis; Giuseppe Cortese; Ciro Esposito; Tommaso Gargano; Rossella Garra; Giulia Mantovani; Laura Marchesini; Simonetta Mencherini; Mario Messina; Gerald Rogan Neba; Gloria Pelizzo; Simone Pizzi; Giovanna Riccipetitoni; Alessandro Simonini; Costanza Tognon; Mario Lima
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 3.453

Review 4.  Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Urological Diseases and Management: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature.

Authors:  B M Zeeshan Hameed; Aiswarya V L S Dhavileswarapu; Syed Zahid Raza; Hadis Karimi; Harneet Singh Khanuja; Dasharathraj K Shetty; Sufyan Ibrahim; Milap J Shah; Nithesh Naik; Rahul Paul; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 4.241

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

6.  Outcomes and comparations of pediatric surgery about choledochal cyst with robot-assisted procedures, laparoscopic procedures, and open procedures: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Siqi Xie; Yanbing Huang; Yuanbin He; Mingkun Liu; Dianming Wu; Yifan Fang
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 3.569

Review 7.  Anesthetic Implications of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Pediatric Patients.

Authors:  Mayuko Wakimoto; Marc Michalsky; Olubukola Nafiu; Joseph Tobias
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2021-05-25

Review 8.  Robotic surgery in pediatric urology.

Authors:  Adam Howe; Zachary Kozel; Lane Palmer
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2016-09-06
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.