Literature DB >> 25539689

Surgeons' perceptions of transanal endoscopic microsurgery using minilaparoscopic instruments in a simulator: the thinner the better.

Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo1, Carlos Ramon Silveira Mendes, Gustavo Lopes Carvalho, Marcos Lyra.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several issues have limited the widespread adoption of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). The need for specialized equipment and the steep learning curve represent one of them. To operate on within a 4-cm diameter, rectoscope represents a major technical challenge. However, minilaparoscopic surgery has been introduced to reduce invasiveness and abdominal wall trauma. In TEM, instrument miniaturization may lead to technique optimization. We hypothesized that visualization and maneuverability during TEM performed with 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments would be superior to TEM performed with conventional 5-mm instruments.
METHODS: Eighteen general and colorectal surgeons with experience with TEM under ten cases were recruited. Two tasks should be accomplished using the TEO(®)-Neoderma simulator. First, using conventional 5-mm TEO(®) curved-tip instruments, a "polypoid lesion" should be excised. Next, closure of the "rectal" defect should be undertaken. In the second part, the same participants repeated the same excision/closure tasks using 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments. After tasks conclusion, participants fulfilled an evaluation questionnaire with seven questions regarding visualization and maneuverability when using 3-mm compared to 5-mm instruments.
RESULTS: For each one of the seven questions in the questionnaire, the score results were significantly higher for the 3-mm instruments indicating that performance with the 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments in the TEO simulator was in all cases between "better than expected" and "much better than expected." Appropriateness of the diameter of the minilaparoscopic instruments was the best evaluated parameter. The question addressing the ease of performing the tasks in the simulator presented the lowest mean score.
CONCLUSIONS: The perceptions of participating surgeons indicated that there is better visualization and maneuverability during basic transanal endoscopic microsurgery tasks conducted in a simulator using 3-mm minilaparoscopic instruments when compared to conventional 5-mm instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25539689     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3956-1

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


  21 in total

1.  Transanal minimally invasive surgery: a giant leap forward.

Authors:  Sam Atallah; Matthew Albert; Sergio Larach
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Preclinical cadaveric study of transanal endoscopic da Vinci® surgery.

Authors:  R Hompes; S M Rauh; M E Hagen; N J Mortensen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is more effective than traditional transanal excision for resection of rectal masses.

Authors:  Jesse S Moore; Peter A Cataldo; Turner Osler; Neil H Hyman
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 4.  TransAnal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS) with SILS™ port versus Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM): a comparative experimental study.

Authors:  Roberto Rimonda; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Alessandro Salvai; Mario Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  [Transanal endoscopic surgery of the rectum - testing a new method in animal experiments].

Authors:  G Buess; R Theiss; F Hutterer; H Pichlmaier; C Pelz; T Holfeld; S Said; W Isselhard
Journal:  Leber Magen Darm       Date:  1983-03

6.  A stepwise approach to transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer using a single-incision laparoscopic port.

Authors:  Roger A Smith; Daniel A Anaya; Daniel Albo; Avo Artinyan
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Indications and results of local treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  B Mentges; G Buess; G Effinger; K Manncke; H D Becker
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 8.  Learning curve for transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a single-center experience.

Authors:  Antonio Maya; Andrew Vorenberg; Myrian Oviedo; Giovanna da Silva; Steven D Wexner; Dana Sands
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus total mesorectal excision of T1 rectal adenocarcinomas with curative intention.

Authors:  E J R De Graaf; P G Doornebosch; R A E M Tollenaar; E Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; A C de Boer; F C Bekkering; C J H van de Velde
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-05-31       Impact factor: 4.424

10.  Transanal endoscopic video-assisted excision: application of single-port access.

Authors:  Madhu Ragupathi; Eric M Haas
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2011 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  2 in total

1.  Low-Friction Minilaparoscopy Outperforms Regular 5-mm and 3-mm Instruments for Precise Tasks.

Authors:  Wood A Firme; Gustavo L Carvalho; Diego L Lima; Vladmir Goldstein de Paula Lopes; Isabelle D Montandon; Flavio Santos Filho; Phillip P Shadduck
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

2.  Minilaparoscopy For Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Authors:  Flavio Malcher; Leandro Totti Cavazzola; Gustavo L Carvalho; Guilherme D E Araujo; José Antônio Da Cunha E Silva; Prashanth Rao; Antonio Carlos Iglesias
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2016 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.