Intraoperative haemodynamic stability in patients with phaeochromocytoma ? minimally invasive vs conventional open surgery

2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Weismann ◽  
Martin Fassnacht ◽  
Fabian Weinberger ◽  
Wulf Hamelmann ◽  
Saskia Diehl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Haemodynamic Stability ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-192
Author(s):  
Reyaz M Singaporewalla ◽  
Anil D Rao ◽  
Arunesh Majumder
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Incision Length ◽  
Video Assisted ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

ABSTRACT Introduction Although the technique of minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) is well established in continental Europe, data on it's role in Asian patients is limited. We compared the results of MIVAT with conventional open hemithyroidectomy in Asian patients. Materials and methods Over a 1-year period, patients undergoing hemithyroidectomy for benign symptomatic goiters were selected. Inclusion criteria for MIVAT were benign colloid goiters, recurrent cysts or follicular lesions and neoplasms with lobe volume of less than 40 cc or nodule diameter less than 35 mm. Larger goiters underwent conventional open surgery. Patients with previous neck surgery and proven malignancy were excluded. Operative time, complications, postoperative pain score, incision length and cosmetic satisfaction at 6 months were recorded. Results Thirty-six patients (MIVAT-21, Conventional-15) were included. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and co-morbidities. The mean operating time for both groups showed no significant difference (MIVAT = 111.67 ± 19.4 min, Conventional = 112.40 ± 25.06 min; p = 0.925). Minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy patients had significantly less pain in the immediate postoperative period (mean pain score 2.38 vs 4.8, p < 0.001). Mean incision length at end of surgery was significantly smaller in the MIVAT group (2.58 vs 6.3 cm; p < 0.001). Neck scar satisfaction at 6 months was excellent in 71.4% of MIVAT cases vs 26.6% of conventional hemithyroidectomy cases. There were no complications in any of the treatment groups. Conclusion In selected cases, MIVAT is as safe as conventional open surgery with distinct advantages of better postoperative pain control and cosmesis. How to cite this article Rao AD, Singaporewalla RM, Majumder A. Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients. World J Endoc Surg 2016;8(3):189-192.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Past, Present, and Future

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Holder-Murray ◽  
E. J. Dozois
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Rapid Progression ◽  
Barriers To Adoption ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Surgery ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery ◽  
Invasive Techniques ◽  
Innovative Techniques

A rapid progression from conventional open surgery to minimally invasive approaches in the surgical management of colorectal cancer has occurred over the last 2 decades. Initial concerns that this new approach was oncologically inferior to open surgery were ultimately refuted when several prospective randomized trials concluded that laparoscopic colectomy could achieve similar oncologic outcomes to open surgery. On the contrary, level 1 data has not yet matured regarding the oncologic safety of minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer. We review the published literature pertaining to the evolution of minimally invasive techniques used to treat colorectal cancer surgery, including barriers to adoption, and the prospects for future advances related to innovative techniques.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Open Surgery for Patients With Spinal Metastasis

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (10) ◽  
pp. 789-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Hansen-Algenstaedt ◽  
Mun Keong Kwan ◽  
Petra Algenstaedt ◽  
Chee Kidd Chiu ◽  
Lennart Viezens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Invasive Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Spinal Metastasis ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE RESULTS BETWEEN OPEN AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE FUSION IN LUMBAR DEGENERATIVE DISEASE

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-307
Author(s):  
Ezequiel Gimenez ◽  
Montaño Marcelo ◽  
Santivañez Raul ◽  
Ommi Acosta Sero
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Disease ◽  
Comparative Results ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

ABSTRACT Objective: Lumbar spine fusion is indicated in patients who are refractory to traditional treatment for degenerative disc disease. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and postoperative results of conventional open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in posterior 360° lumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation. Methods: A total of 25 patients underwent MIS and 40 underwent open surgery between 2015 and 2017. Perioperative variables and lumbar and radicular pain values were compared using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) until 12 months after surgery. Results: The MIS cohort presented less blood loss (140 vs 345 ml; p=0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.1 vs 2.2 days; p=0.001), longer operative time (113 vs 94 minutes; p=0.001) and greater X-ray exposure (80 vs 6 seconds; p=0.001), compared to the open surgery group. The MIS cohort showed better results in the ODI and lumbar VAS scores. No significant differences were observed in radicular VAS. Conclusion: MIS surgery showed advantages over the open surgery technique; however, the learning curve should be improved in order to reduce operative time. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective descriptive observational study.

scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of minimally invasive ‘tibial tuberoplasty’ surgical technique versus conventional open surgery for Schatzker II–III tibial plateau fractures: design of a multicentre, randomised, controlled and blinded trial (TUBERIMPACT study)

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e026962
Author(s):  
Tanguy Vendeuvre ◽  
Olivier Monlezun ◽  
Claire Brandet ◽  
Pierre Ingrand ◽  
Isabelle Durand-Zaleski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Tibial Plateau ◽  
Tibial Plateau Fracture ◽  
Tibial Plateau Fractures ◽  
Plateau Fracture ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

IntroductionFractures of the tibial plateau are in constant progression. They affect an elderly population suffering from a number of comorbidities, but also a young population increasingly practicing high-risk sports. The conventional open surgical technique used for tibial plateau fractures has several pitfalls: bone and skin devascularisation, increased risks of infection and functional rehabilitation difficulties. Since 2011, Poitiers University Hospital is offering to its patients a new minimally invasive technique for the reduction and stabilisation of tibial plateau fractures, named ‘tibial tuberoplasty’. This technique involves expansion of the tibial plateau through inflation using a kyphoplasty balloon, filling of the fracture cavity with cement and percutaneous screw fixation. We designed a study to evaluate the quality of fracture reduction offered by percutaneous tuberoplasty versus conventional open surgery for tibial plateau fracture and its impact on clinical outcome.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing two surgical techniques in the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. 140 patients with a Schatzker II or III tibial plateau fracture will be recruited in France. They will be randomised either in tibial tuberoplasty arm or in conventional surgery arm. The primary outcome is the postoperative radiological step-off reduction blindly measured on CT scan (within 48 hours post-op). Additional outcomes include other radiological endpoints, pain, functional abilities, quality of life assessment and health-economic endpoints. Outcomes assessment will be performed at baseline (before surgery), at day 0 (surgery), at 2, 21, 45 days, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postsurgery.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the ethics committee Ile-De-France X and will be conducted in accordance with current Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki and standard operating procedures. The results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberClinicaltrial.gov:NCT03444779.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document