Caroline Harte1, Melissa Ren2, Stefania Querciagrossa2, Emilie Druot2, Fabrizio Vatta3, Sabine Sarnacki3, Souhayl Dahmani4, Gilles Orliaguet5, Thomas Blanc6. 1. Department of Paediatric Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Necker-Enfants Malades University Hospital, AP-HP, Centre-Université de Paris, France. Electronic address: C.Harte@ch-sallanches-chamonix.fr. 2. Department of Paediatric Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Necker-Enfants Malades University Hospital, AP-HP, Centre-Université de Paris, France. 3. Department of Paediatric Surgery and Urology, Necker-Enfants Malades University Hospital, AP-HP, Centre-Université de Paris, France. 4. Department of Paediatric Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Robert Debré University Hospital, AP-HP, Université de Paris, France. 5. Department of Paediatric Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Necker-Enfants Malades University Hospital, AP-HP, Centre-Université de Paris, France; Pharmacologie et évaluation des thérapeutiques chez l'enfant et la femme enceinte, Unité de recherche EA 7323, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris centre - Site Tarnier, Université de Paris, 89 Rue d'Assas, Paris 75006, France. 6. Department of Paediatric Surgery and Urology, Necker-Enfants Malades University Hospital, AP-HP, Centre-Université de Paris, France; Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies of Chronic Kidney Disease, INSERM U115-CNRS UMR 8253, Institut Necker Enfants Malades, Département "Croissance et Signalisation", Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades, Université de Paris, 149, Rue de Sèvres, Paris 75015, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Paediatric robotic surgery is gaining popularity across multiple disciplines and offers technical advantages in complex procedures requiring delicate dissection. To date, limited publications describe its perioperative management in children. MATERIAL & METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the prospectively collected anaesthetic data of the first 200 robotic-assisted surgery procedures in our paediatric university hospital as part of a multidisciplinary program from October of 2016 to February of 2019. Anaesthetic technique and monitoring were based on guidelines initially derived from adult data. We examined adverse events and particular outcomes including blood loss and analgesic requirements. RESULTS: Fifty-one different surgical procedures were performed in patients aged 4 months to 18 years (weight 5-144 kg). Operative times averaged 4 h and conversion rate was 3%. Neither robotic arm nor positional injury occurred. Limited access to the patient did not lead to any complication. Hypothermia was frequent and mostly self-limiting. Negative physiological effects due to positioning, body cavity insufflation or surgery manifesting as significant respiratory and haemodynamic changes occurred in 14% and 11% of patients, respectively. Overt haemorrhage complicated one case. Eighty per cent of 170 patients did not require level 3 analgesics postoperatively, while thoracic and certain tumour cases had greater analgesic requirements. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results show that paediatric robotic surgery is well tolerated with a low bleeding risk and that major intraoperative events are uncommon. A consistent anaesthetic approach is effective across a broad range of procedures. Analgesic requirements are low excluding thoracic and some complex abdominal cases. Future studies should focus on the rehabilitative aspects of robotic surgery technique.
INTRODUCTION: Paediatric robotic surgery is gaining popularity across multiple disciplines and offers technical advantages in complex procedures requiring delicate dissection. To date, limited publications describe its perioperative management in children. MATERIAL & METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the prospectively collected anaesthetic data of the first 200 robotic-assisted surgery procedures in our paediatric university hospital as part of a multidisciplinary program from October of 2016 to February of 2019. Anaesthetic technique and monitoring were based on guidelines initially derived from adult data. We examined adverse events and particular outcomes including blood loss and analgesic requirements. RESULTS: Fifty-one different surgical procedures were performed in patients aged 4 months to 18 years (weight 5-144 kg). Operative times averaged 4 h and conversion rate was 3%. Neither robotic arm nor positional injury occurred. Limited access to the patient did not lead to any complication. Hypothermia was frequent and mostly self-limiting. Negative physiological effects due to positioning, body cavity insufflation or surgery manifesting as significant respiratory and haemodynamic changes occurred in 14% and 11% of patients, respectively. Overt haemorrhage complicated one case. Eighty per cent of 170 patients did not require level 3 analgesics postoperatively, while thoracic and certain tumour cases had greater analgesic requirements. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results show that paediatric robotic surgery is well tolerated with a low bleeding risk and that major intraoperative events are uncommon. A consistent anaesthetic approach is effective across a broad range of procedures. Analgesic requirements are low excluding thoracic and some complex abdominal cases. Future studies should focus on the rehabilitative aspects of robotic surgery technique.