Literature DB >> 29307096

Surgical training in robotic surgery: surgical experience of robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal herniorrhaphy with and without resident participation.

Jessica Gonzalez-Hernandez1, Purvi Prajapati2, Gerald Ogola2, Ryan D Burkart3, Lam D Le4,3.   

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is becoming more popular in general surgery. Implementation of a robotic curriculum is necessary and will influence surgical training. The aim of this study is to compare surgical experience and outcomes with and without resident participation in robotic inguinal herniorrhaphy. A retrospective review of patients who underwent either unilateral or bilateral robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal herniorrhaphy, with and without resident participation as console surgeons from January through December 2015, was performed. Patient demographics, procedure-related data, postoperative variables, and follow-up data were analyzed. A total of 104 patients were included. Patients were significantly older in the Resident group (57.5 ± 14.1 vs 50.6 ± 13.5 years, p = 0.01). Gender, BMI, and ASA classification were similar between groups. There were similar mean operative times for unilateral (89.9 ± 19.5 vs 84.8 ± 22.2 min, p = 0.42) and bilateral (128.4 ± 21.9 vs 129.8 ± 50.9 min, p = 0.90) inguinal herniorrhaphy as well as mean robot console times for unilateral (73.2 ± 18.4 vs 67.3 ± 29.9 min, p = 0.44) and bilateral (115.5 ± 24.6 vs 109.3 ± 55.4 min, p = 0.67) inguinal herniorrhaphy with and without resident participation, respectively. Postoperative complications included urinary retention (11.1 vs 2.0%, p = 0.11), conversion to open repair (0 vs 2%, p = 0.48), and delayed reoperation (0 vs 4%, p = 0.22) with and without resident participation, respectively. Patients' symptoms/signs at follow-up were similar among groups. Robotic-assisted TAPP inguinal herniorrhaphy with resident participation as console surgeons did not affect the hospital operative experience or patient outcomes. This procedure can be implemented as part of the resident robotic curriculum with rates of morbidity equivalent to those of published studies.Level of evidence 2b.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inguinal hernia; Robotic surgery; Surgical education

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29307096     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-017-0771-4

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


  23 in total

1.  Manual robot assisted endoscopic suturing: time-action analysis in an experimental model.

Authors:  J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders; B Pulles; F M Kappelhof; C van der Werken
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Randomized controlled multicenter international clinical trial of self-gripping Parietex™ ProGrip™ polyester mesh versus lightweight polypropylene mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: interim results at 3 months.

Authors:  A Kingsnorth; M Gingell-Littlejohn; S Nienhuijs; S Schüle; P Appel; P Ziprin; A Eklund; M Miserez; S Smeds
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  Self-fixating mesh for the Lichtenstein procedure--a prestudy.

Authors:  Matthias Kapischke; Heiko Schulze; Amke Caliebe
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2010-02-20       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 4.  Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Leandro Totti Cavazzola; Michael J Rosen
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 5.  The use of robotics in surgery: a review.

Authors:  A Hussain; A Malik; M U Halim; A M Ali
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, a single-institution experience.

Authors:  Jose E Escobar Dominguez; Michael Gonzalez Ramos; Rupa Seetharamaiah; Charan Donkor; Jorge Rabaza; Anthony Gonzalez
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Randomized clinical trial of self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh for Lichtenstein hernia repair.

Authors:  L N Jorgensen; T Sommer; S Assaadzadeh; L Strand; A Dorfelt; M Hensler; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Kimberly E Waite; Mark A Herman; Patrick J Doyle
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-04-25

9.  Tension-free open hernia repair using an innovative self-gripping semi-resorbable mesh.

Authors:  P Chastan
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Usage of a self-adhesive mesh in TAPP hernia repair: A prospective study based on Herniamed Register.

Authors:  Pavol Klobusicky; Peter Feyerherd
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.407

View more
  8 in total

1.  Making the Jump: A Qualitative Analysis on the Transition From Bedside Assistant to Console Surgeon in Robotic Surgery Training.

Authors:  Beiqun Zhao; Hannah M Hollandsworth; Arielle M Lee; Jenny Lam; Nicole E Lopez; Benjamin Abbadessa; Samuel Eisenstein; Bard C Cosman; Sonia L Ramamoorthy; Lisa A Parry
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 2.891

2.  Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  A Aiolfi; M Cavalli; G Micheletto; P G Bruni; F Lombardo; C Perali; G Bonitta; D Bona
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 3.  Robot-assisted groin hernia repair is primarily performed by specialized surgeons: a scoping review.

Authors:  Danni Lip Hansen; Anders Gram-Hanssen; Siv Fonnes; Jacob Rosenberg
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-07-05

4.  RoCS: Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons.

Authors:  Jessica Stockheim; Aristotelis Perrakis; Bernhard A Sabel; Robert Waschipky; Roland S Croner
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-07-09

5.  Implementation of robot-assisted groin hernia repair diminishes the prospects of young surgeons' training: a nationwide register-based cohort study.

Authors:  D L Hansen; C Christophersen; S Fonnes; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 2.920

Review 6.  Current status and future perspectives of robotic inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  Takuya Saito; Yasuyuki Fukami; Shintaro Kurahashi; Kohei Yasui; Tairin Uchino; Tatsuki Matsumura; Takaaki Osawa; Shunichiro Komatsu; Kenitiro Kaneko; Tsuyoshi Sano
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 2.540

Review 7.  INGUINAL REPAIR VIA ROBOTIC ASSISTED TECHNIQUE: LITERATURE REVIEW.

Authors:  Eduardo Henrique Pirolla; Gabriel Pavani Patriota; Fernanda Junqueira Cesar Pirolla; Felipe Piccarone Gonçalves Ribeiro; Marina Guitton Rodrigues; Layla Riva Ismail; Raquel Mezzalira Ruano
Journal:  Arq Bras Cir Dig       Date:  2018-12-06

8.  Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair Outcomes: Operative Time and Cost Analysis.

Authors:  Morcos A Awad; Jarrod Buzalewski; Cooper Anderson; James T Dove; Ashley Soloski; Nicole E Sharp; Bogdan Protyniak; Mohsen M Shabahang
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2020 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.