scholarly journals Surgical robotics and its development and progress

Robotica ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian S Dai
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Surgical Robotics ◽  
Robotic Technology ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Tremendous Impact

Surgical robotics is the study and application of advanced robotic technology to diverse surgical procedures, particularly to minimally invasive surgery. The advanced robotic technology in minimally invasive surgery leads to momentous change in and generates a tremendous impact on surgery, resulting in less pain and scarring, reduced blood loss and transfusions, lower risk of complication, shorter hospital stays and faster recovery periods.

Technologies in Surgical Robotics

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil Belligundu ◽  
Panayiotis S. Shiakolas
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Surgical Robotics ◽  
Medical Field ◽  
Technology Applications ◽  
Surgical Field ◽  
Robotic Technologies

Abstract This paper presents a partial review of in-use, experimental or under development robotics technology applications in the medical field. The scope of the paper was narrowed by focusing on technologies related to surgical robotics, and applied to surgical procedures for Orthopedics, Telesurgery, Minimally Invasive Surgery, Endoscopy and Neurosurgery. Results of the review revealed that robotics in surgery are correctly considered as a tool for enhancing, not replacing the surgeon’s capabilities. Robotics technology is slowly but steadily gaining acceptance and usage in the field of surgery, but still faces many challenges. Rapid and continuous improvements in robotic technologies have great potential in advancing robotics use in the surgical field.

Biomedical Robotics for Healthcare

2012 ◽  
pp. 200-205
Author(s):  
Kenoki Ohuchida ◽  
Makoto Hashizume
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Endoscopic Surgery ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Body Cavity ◽  
Endoscopic Procedures ◽  
Biomedical Robotics ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

Recently, a robotic system was developed in the biomedical field to support minimally invasive surgery. The popularity of minimally invasive surgery has surged rapidly because of endoscopic procedures. In endoscopic surgery, surgical procedures are performed within a body cavity and visualized with laparoscopy or thoracoscopy. Since the initial laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed in 1987, the implications for endoscopic procedures have continuously expanded, and endoscopic surgery is currently the standard for an increasing number of operations. Advances in laparoscopic surgery have led to less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and an earlier return to work for many patients. However, performing laparoscopic procedures requires several skills that have never been required for conventional open surgery. The surgeon needs to coordinate his/her eyes and hands and acquire a skillful manner using long-shaft instruments as well as mentally interpret a two-dimensional environment as a three-dimensional one. Because learning such skills is stressful for most surgeons, performing a laparoscopic procedure is more physically and mentally demanding than performing an open procedure.

scholarly journals Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery versus Laparotomy for Surgical Staging of Endometrial Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 916-920
Author(s):  
Mona Priyadarshini ◽  
Rani Akhil Bhat
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Surgical Staging ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Endometrial carcinoma is one of the commonest gynaecological cancer in developed countries as well as developing countries. The mainstay of initial treatment of endometrial carcinoma is surgical staging which may be performed by either the conventional abdominal approach or by minimally invasive route i.e. laparoscopic or robotic. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the surgical staging, safety and clinical benefits of minimally invasive surgeries versus. laparotomy in patients with endometrial cancer. Methodology: We retrospectively analyzed 105 patients with endometrial cancer over a period of five years and compared the outcome of total hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by abdominal, laparoscopic approach or robotic-assisted surgery. Comparison was done with respect to operative time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications. The data were analyzed using paired “t”- test / Wilcoxon signed rank test ,χ2 - test, Pearson correlation coefficient “r” whenever found suitable. P value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Result: There was no statistically significant difference seen in the baseline characteristics like age and BMI between the two groups. The laparotomies were done in a shorter time than the minimally invasive approach (p<0.001). The amount of blood loss (p=0.002), and the duration of hospital stay (p<0.001) was significantly less in the minimally invasive surgery group than the laparotomies. Not much difference in the lymph node retrieval was observed between the two arms (p=0.614). The number of complications were almost similar in both the groups. Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery for surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma is feasible and effective than laparotomy. The amount of blood loss and duration of hospital stay is seen much lesser with MIS than laparotomy.

822 HOW THE OPERATING SURGEON'S ASSESSMENT OF RADICALITY INFLUENCES SURVIVAL AFTER ESOPHAGEAL CANCER SURGERY

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustav Linder ◽  
Mats Lindblad
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Curative Resection ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Advanced Stage

Abstract   The operating surgeon’s assessment of surgical radicality following esophagectomy is reported to the Swedish National Registry for Esophageal and Gastric cancer(NREV). The variable provides means to identify risk factors for non-curative resections and study whether the surgeon’s assessment independently prognosticates survival. Methods All patients in NREV undergoing esophagectomy between 2006–2018 was grouped according to the surgeon’s assessment of radicality: Curative-, Borderline-curative- and Palliative resection. The cohort was followed until death, emigration or end of follow-up. Factors affecting group allocation was studied with multivariable logistic regression and survival with cox-regression and the Kaplan–Meier method. Results Of 1860 resected patients, esophagectomy was deemed curative in 1515(81%), borderline-curative in 179(10%), palliative in 63(3%) and missing in 103(6%). Median survival was 44.6, 20.0, 11.5 and 29.6 months respectively. Advanced stage (e.g., stage IVa), OR 7,37 (1,93–28,1 95%CI) and blood-loss &gt;1000 mL, OR 1.90 (1,17-3,08), increased the risk of borderline-curative resection. Minimally invasive surgery and multidisciplinary treatment decision (MDT) decreased the risk of borderline-curative resection, OR 0.42 (0,23-0,77) and OR 0.41 (0,22-0,77). Adjusted for well-established prognostic factors, e.g. age, p-TNM and R1-resection, the surgeon’s assessment was an independent variable for survival; borderline-curative HR 1,38 (1,11-1,72), palliative HR 1,91 (1,38-2,63). Conclusion The surgeon’s operative assessment of radicality following esophagectomy appears to independently prognosticate survival. Advanced stage and large-volume intraoperative blood loss increases the risk while minimally invasive surgery and MDT decreases the risk for borderline-curative resection.

scholarly journals The minimally invasive approach, laparoscopic and robotic, in rectal resection for cancer: A single center experience

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Popescu ◽  
C. Vasilescu ◽  
V. Tomulescu ◽  
S. Vasile ◽  
O. Sgarbura
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Metastatic Lymph Node ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Robotic approach for rectal cancer competes with laparoscopy in centers dedicated to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) due to the technologic advantage. This is a report of our experience with MIS for rectal cancer. Methods: A series of 84 consecutive patients with laparoscopic resection (between 1995-2010) and 38 consecutive patients with robotic resection (between 2008-2010) for primary rectal cancer were analyzed. Hartmann's procedures were excluded. Clinical and pathologic outcomes were reviewed retrospectively. Results: In the laparoscopic group (LG), 50 anterior rectal resections (ARR), 34 abdominal perineal resections (APR) were performed while in the robotic group(RG) there were 30 ARR and 8 APR. The median operative time was 182 min (140-220 min) in LG and 208 min (180- 300 min) in RG (p=0.0002). No statistically significant difference was noticed between the groups in terms of conversion, morbidity, anastomotic leak and postoperative stay rates. Margin clearance was obtained in all patients and the median number of removed lymph nodes was similar: 11.37 in RG vs 11.07 in the LG (p=0.65) with a higher rate of metastatic lymph node involvement in laparoscopy (p=0.0012). Blood loss was higher in LG (150 ml vs. 100 ml; p=0.0001). There were 5 (5.9%) local recurrences in the LG at a median follow- up of 27.5 months and 2 (5.2%) in the RG at a median follow-up of 13 months (p=0.43). Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer proved to be safe and efficient with similar results in the two groups. Technological advances of robotic approach compared to laparoscopy allowed better ergonomics, more refined dissection, easier preserving of hypogastric nerves and less blood loss. Long term outcomes are to be assessed in prospective randomized studies.

Design and Fabrication of a Focused Ultrasound Device for Minimallyinvasive Neurosurgery: Reporting a Second, Miniaturized and Mrcompatible Prototype with Steering Capabilities

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Acord ◽  
Tarana Parvez Kaovasia ◽  
Nao J. Gamo ◽  
Tim Xiong ◽  
Eli Curry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Focused Ultrasound ◽  
Brain Lesions ◽  
Brain Surgery ◽  
Ultrasound Device ◽  
Electronic Steering

Abstract Many surgeons are faced with inoperable or only partially operable brain lesions, such as tumors. Even when surgery is feasible, patient outcomes are greatly affected by blood loss or infection. This has led many physicians toward non- or minimally-invasive surgery, which demands specialized toolkits. Focused ultrasound has great potential for assisting in such procedures due to its ability to focus a few centimeters away from the surface of the transducer. In a prior study, we developed a focused ultrasound prototype that could fit within a BrainPath trocar, specifically made for minimally invasive brain surgery. Here, we present the design and fabrication of a second prototype that reduces size, is MR-compatible, and has electronic steering capabilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document