Literature DB >> 26120735

Robotic-Assisted Procedures in Pediatric Surgery: A Critical Appraisal of the Current Best Evidence in Comparison to Conventional Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Florian Friedmacher1, Holger Till1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has expanded within pediatric surgery. Although increasing numbers of pediatric RAS case-series have been published, the level of evidence remains unclear, with authors mainly focusing on the comparison with open surgery rather than the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the published literature comparing pediatric RAS with conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in order to evaluate the current best level of evidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature-based search for studies comparing pediatric RAS with corresponding MIS procedures was performed using multiple electronic databases and sources. The level of evidence was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 20 studies met defined inclusion criteria, reporting on five different procedures: fundoplication (n=8), pyeloplasty (n=8), nephrectomy (n=2), gastric banding (n=1), and sleeve gastrectomy (n=1). Included publications comprised 5 systematic reviews and 15 cohort/case-control studies (OCEBM Level 3 and 4, respectively). No studies of OCEBM Level 1 or 2 were identified. Limited evidence indicated reduced operative time (pyeloplasty) and shorter hospital stay (fundoplication) for pediatric RAS, whereas disadvantages were longer operative time (fundoplication, nephrectomy, gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy) and higher total costs (fundoplication and sleeve gastrectomy). There were no differences reported for complications, success rates, or short-term outcomes between pediatric RAS and conventional MIS in these procedures. Inconsistency was found in study design and follow-up with large clinical heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence for pediatric RAS is currently OCEBM Level 3, relating only to fundoplication and pyeloplasty. Therefore, higher-quality studies and comparative data for other RAS procedures in pediatric surgery are required.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26120735     DOI: 10.1089/lap.2015.0119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A        ISSN: 1092-6429            Impact factor:   1.878


  5 in total

Review 1.  What's the best minimal invasive approach to pediatric nephrectomy and heminephrectomy: conventional laparoscopy (CL), single-site (LESS) or robotics (RAS)?

Authors:  Holger Till; Ali Basharkhah; Andras Hock
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2016-10

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.  Robotic Surgery: Is There a Possibility of Increasing Its Application in Pediatric Settings? A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Edoardo Bindi; Camilla Todesco; Fabiano Nino; Giovanni Torino; Gianluca Gentilucci; Giovanni Cobellis
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-08

4.  A Comparative Analysis of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Pediatric and Adult Patients: Does Age Matter?

Authors:  Bosik Kang; Jungyo Suh; Bumjin Lim; Kun Suk Kim; Sang Hoon Song
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-25       Impact factor: 4.964

5.  Ten years of paediatric robotic surgery: Lessons learned.

Authors:  Martin Salö; Linda Bonnor; Christina Graneli; Pernilla Stenström; Magnus Anderberg
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2022-03-11       Impact factor: 2.483

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.