Literature DB >> 27247263

Total Laparoscopic (S-LPS) versus TELELAP ALF-X Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy: A Case-Control Study.

Francesco Fanfani1, Stefano Restaino2, Cristiano Rossitto3, Salvatore Gueli Alletti3, Barbara Costantini3, Giorgia Monterossi3, Serena Cappuccio3, Emanuele Perrone3, Giovanni Scambia3.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare the feasibility and safety of the TELELAP ALF-X system and standard laparoscopy for total hysterectomy to treat patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective case-control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING: Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. PATIENTS: Between October 2013 and May 2015, 203 women underwent TELELAP-ALF X (group 1) or standard laparoscopic (group 2) total hysterectomy and were enrolled.
INTERVENTIONS: Total standard laparoscopy vs TELELAP ALF-X robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign and early malignant gynecologic disease.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In group 1, the median age was 55 years (range, 40-79 years), median body mass index (BMI) was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-38 kg/m(2)), and 51 patients (58%) had undergone previous abdominal surgery. In the control group, the median age was 55 years (range, 34-90 years), median BMI was 25 kg/m(2) (range, 17-41 kg/m(2)), and 31 patients (27%) had previous abdominal surgery. The median operative time was 147 minutes (range, 58-320 minutes) in group 1 and 80 minutes (range, 22-300 minutes) in group 2 (p = .055). The median estimated blood loss was 57 mL (range, 0-600 mL) in group 1 and 99 mL (range, 0-400 mL) in group 2, with no significant differences between the 2 groups (p = .963). Procedures were successfully performed without conversion in 94.3% of cases in the group 1 and in all cases in group 2. Early postoperative pain was significantly lower in group 2.
CONCLUSION: TELELAP ALF-X hysterectomy in patients with benign and early malignant gynecologic disease is feasible and safe, and can be considered a valid option for these patients.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotic; TELELAP ALF-X

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27247263     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  7 in total

Review 1.  Review of emerging surgical robotic technology.

Authors:  Brian S Peters; Priscila R Armijo; Crystal Krause; Songita A Choudhury; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  First Experiences with the New Senhance® Telerobotic System in Visceral Surgery.

Authors:  Dietmar Stephan; Heike Sälzer; Frank Willeke
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2018-02-16

3.  Updates and Controversies of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Surgery.

Authors:  Aaron Varghese; Marisol Doglioli; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.190

Review 4.  Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Allison Weaver; Scott Steele
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-09-26

5.  Human and robot: an amity not a discord.

Authors:  Glen Denmer R Santok; Ali Abdel Raheem; Ki Don Chang; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-04

Review 6.  Robotics in reproduction, fertility preservation, and ovarian transplantation.

Authors:  Enes Taylan; Kutluk H Oktay
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2017-02-27

Review 7.  Robotic surgical systems in urology: What is currently available?

Authors:  Periklis Koukourikis; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2021-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.