Literature DB >> 27637232

Standardized surgical technique and dedicated operating room environment can reduce the operative time during robotic-assisted surgery for pelvic floor disorders.

Surendra Mantoo1, Jerome Rigaud2, Sophie Naulet2, Paul-Antoine Lehur2, Guillaume Meurette2.   

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery for pelvic floor disorders (PFD) meets the accepted standards for laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to describe the technique and the impact of this standardized surgical technique and dedicated operating teams on the operative time for robotic-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (RALVMR). Data from a prospective database were extracted for all patients who underwent RALVMR between January 2008 and May 2012 for multi-compartment PFD. Patient pre-, intra- and early postoperative data were analysed. To evaluate the impact of both the surgical technique and operating room team on operative time over successive years, we divided the total operation time (TOT) into robot set-up time (RST) and surgeon console time (SCT) including disembarking robotic arms and closure of wounds. A total of 51 patients (3 male) with a mean age of 61.1 [±11, standard deviation (SD)] years were included for analysis. There were no major complications or deaths. Median TOT fell significantly by 23 % from 2008 (270 min) to 2012 (179 min) (p < 0.0001). The largest reduction (>60 %) was seen in RST, from 55 (SD ±3) to 21 (SD ±2) min (p < 0.0001). Similarly, SCT was reduced by 36 % from 216 (SD ±12) to 138 (SD ±8) min (p < 0.0001). Decreased operative time and efficiency were facilitated by a devoted, well-trained and consistent team. A standardized surgical technique for PFD helps to reduce the duration of the surgical procedure.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pelvic floor disorders; Robotic surgery; Ventral mesh rectopexy

Year:  2013        PMID: 27637232     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-013-0411-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Conor P Delaney; A Craig Lynch; Anthony J Senagore; Victor W Fazio
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 2.  Robot-assisted general surgery.

Authors:  Jeffrey W Hazey; W Scott Melvin
Journal:  Semin Laparosc Surg       Date:  2004-06

Review 3.  Establishing a robotics program.

Authors:  William D Steers; Sam LeBeau; Joseph Cardella; Brant Fulmer
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 4.  Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sergio Maeso; Mercedes Reza; Julio A Mayol; Juan A Blasco; Mercedes Guerra; Elena Andradas; María N Plana
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery.

Authors:  Jeong Yeon Kim; Nam-Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Jang Hwan Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse.

Authors:  A D'Hoore; R Cadoni; F Penninckx
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes.

Authors:  Mark T C Wong; Guillaume Meurette; Jerome Rigaud; Nicolas Regenet; Paul-Antoine Lehur
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.585

8.  Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve.

Authors:  Mohamed N Akl; Jaime B Long; Dobie L Giles; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul D Pettit; Anita H Chen; Paul M Magtibay
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Avinash N Supe; Gaurav V Kulkarni; Pradnya A Supe
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.407

10.  Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case-control study.

Authors:  Dominique E N M de Hoog; Jeroen Heemskerk; Fred H M Nieman; Wim G van Gemert; Cor G M I Baeten; Nicole D Bouvy
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-07-09       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  3 in total

1.  Efficacy of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release in a porcine model.

Authors:  W H Tan; J M McAllister; J A Blatnik
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-10-28       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  C S Inaba; S Sujatha-Bhaskar; C Y Koh; M D Jafari; S D Mills; J C Carmichael; M J Stamos; A Pigazzi
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  Factors Predicting Operating Room Time in Ureteroscopy and Ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  Ioannis Katafigiotis; Itay M Sabler; Eliyahu M Heifetz; Ayman Isid; Stavros Sfoungaristos; Amitay Lorber; Vladimir Yutkin; Guy Hidas; Arie Latke; Ezekiel H Landau; Dov Pode; Ofer N Gofrit; Mordechai Duvdevani
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-07-20
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.