Literature DB >> 31089749

[Standardized access options for colorectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi system].

D Perez1, A Woestemeier2, T Ghadban2, H Stein3, M Gomez-Ruiz4, J R Izbicki2, B Soh Min5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Performing colorectal surgery with previous da Vinci system generations presented some limitations that caused uncertainty for surgeons as they began to apply robotic technologies. The da Vinci Xi system is designed to overcome these limitations and to enable multiquadrant colorectal surgery.
OBJECTIVE: The design concept of the da Vinci Xi system and the standardized access for colorectal surgery are explained.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The da Vinci Xi system applies an overhead boom that maximizes the arm workspace, minimizes interference and makes the port placement universal for standardized access. Colorectal approaches have been validated in numerous cadaver models confirming the reproducibility of the standardized access.
RESULTS: Standardized access with a straight-line port placement is possible in all colorectal applications. For right-sided hemicolectomy, a transverse abdominal approach as well as a suprapubic port placement are possible. Utilizing the same principles, left-sided colectomy, sigmoid colectomy and low anterior resections can be performed. Proctocolectomy is enabled through boom rotation and a second docking. Only minor arm-to-arm interferences occurred and were easily manageable by the bedside assistant. None of the approaches required rearrangement of the patient cart or swapping arms to different port locations.
CONCLUSION: The da Vinci Xi system enables a standardized access for colorectal surgery through a universal straight-line port placement. Learning this standard principle once enables the surgeon to apply it to all colorectal surgeries and shorten the learning curve as well as minimizing stress for both novices and experienced robotic surgeons learning a new surgical robotic platform.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medical device; Minimally invasive surgery; Port placement; Robotic surgery; Visceral surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31089749     DOI: 10.1007/s00104-019-0973-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chirurg        ISSN: 0009-4722            Impact factor:   0.955


  21 in total

1.  Robotic left colon cancer resection: a dual docking technique that maximizes splenic flexure mobilization.

Authors:  Sung Uk Bae; Se Jin Baek; Hyuk Hur; Seung Hyuk Baik; Nam Kyu Kim; Byung Soh Min
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Colorectal Cancer Surgery Using the Da Vinci Xi and Si Systems: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes.

Authors:  Yu-Min Huang; Yan Jiun Huang; Po-Li Wei
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.058

Review 3.  Totally robotic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and splenic flexure mobilization.

Authors:  Minia Hellan; Hubert Stein; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-12-05       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases.

Authors:  M Barnajian; D Pettet; E Kazi; C Foppa; R Bergamaschi
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.788

Review 5.  Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies.

Authors:  Binghong Xiong; Li Ma; Wei Huang; Qikang Zhao; Yong Cheng; Jingshan Liu
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Prior experience in laparoscopic rectal surgery can minimise the learning curve for robotic rectal resections: a cumulative sum analysis.

Authors:  Manfred Odermatt; Jamil Ahmed; Sofoklis Panteleimonitis; Jim Khan; Amjad Parvaiz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The impact of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched analysis of a 3-arm comparison--open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.

Authors:  Jeonghyun Kang; Kyu Jong Yoon; Byung Soh Min; Hyuk Hur; Seung Hyuk Baik; Nam Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Skills in minimally invasive and open surgery show limited transferability to robotic surgery: results from a prospective study.

Authors:  Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Mona W Schmidt; Tanja Proctor; Moritz Pohl; Erica Wennberg; Emir Karadza; Philipp Romero; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Ka Ting Ng; Azlan Kok Vui Tsia; Vanessa Yu Ling Chong
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 10.  Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures.

Authors:  Julia-Kristin Baukloh; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh; Matthias Biebl; Jakob R Izbicki; Johann Pratschke; Felix Aigner
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2018-02-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.