Pioneering the future of robotic liver surgery
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11336539 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10942232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the technique of choice in selected patients for the treatment of liver tumors. The robotic approach is considered today the natural evolution of MIS. The application of the robotic technique in liver transplantation (LT) has been recently evaluated, especially in the living donation. The aim of this paper is to review the current role of the MIS and robotic donor hepatectomy in the literature and to evaluate the possible future implication in the transplant field.MethodsWe conducted a narrative review using PubMed and Google Scholar for reports published so far, using the following keywords: minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic liver surgery, robotic liver surgery, robotic living donation, laparoscopic donor hepatectomy and robotic donor hepatectomy.ResultsSeveral advantages have been claimed in favor of robotic surgery: three-dimensional (3-D) imaging with stable and high-definition view; a more rapid learning curve than the laparoscopic one; the lack of hand tremors and the freedom of movements. Compared to open surgery, the benefits showed in the studies evaluating the robotic approach in the living donation are: less postoperative pain, the shorter period before returning to normal activity despite sustaining longer operation time. Furthermore, the 3-D and magnification view makes the technique excellent in distinguishing the right plane of transection, vascular and biliary anatomy, associated with high precision of the movements and a better bleeding control (essential for donor safety) and lower rate of vascular injury.ConclusionsThe current literature does not fully support the superiority of the robotic approach versus laparoscopic or open method in living donor hepatectomy. Robotic donor hepatectomy performed by teams with high expertise and in properly selected living donors is safe and feasible. However, further data are necessary to evaluate properly the role of robotic surgery in the field of living donation.
| S-EPMC9944521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robot-assisted surgery has been progressively involved in various fields of adult and pediatric surgery, demonstrating many advantages over either mini-invasive or open surgery. The aim of this review is to provide the most recent evidence on robot-assisted pediatric surgery, in all its subspecialties. A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted using appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. The interval time considered was a 5-year period [2017-2022], and no language restrictions were applied. A total of 685 titles were identified. After applying exclusion criteria, 73 articles for robotic pediatric surgery have been published and were included in this review. We extrapolated and summarized the current evidence on robot-assisted surgery in pediatric age through all the fields of applicability. Robot-assisted surgery is technically feasible in case of a selected pediatric cohort, and it is going to achieve similar or better surgical results if related to the standard open or mini-invasive procedures. Copious case series and randomized trials are still required. Due to the great potential that this new technology is demonstrating, in the close future, the evolution of robotic platform will offer a valid and solid alternative in the treatment of various pediatric pathologies.
| S-EPMC10644013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon's experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon's toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years.
| S-EPMC5415365 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11806135 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11329169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The introduction of robotics has revolutionized surgery. Robotic platforms have also recently been introduced in clinical practice specifically for flexible ureteroscopy. In this paper, we look at the robotic platforms currently available for flexible ureteroscopy, describing their advantages and limitations. The following robotic platforms are discussed: Roboflex Avicenna®, EasyUretero®, and ILY® robot. Finally, potential future advancements in this field are presented.
| S-EPMC9501440 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11806145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAs robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.MethodsPubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms "robotic" [MeSH], "colon" [MeSH], "rectum" [MeSH], "colorectal" [MeSH], and "colorectal surgery" [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.ResultsThis review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.ConclusionRobot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.
| S-EPMC6940430 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11806132 | biostudies-literature