Robotic surgery in ukraine: first experience and development perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11603/2414-4533.2023.1.13794Keywords:
robotic surgery, da Vinci robotic system, minimally invasive technologiesAbstract
The aim of the work: to analyze our own experience of robotic procedures.
Materials and Methods. On the basis of the First territorial medical association of the city of Lviv, St. Panteleimon Hospital and the Department of Surgery, Plastic Surgery and Endoscopy of the Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, 45 operations were performed using the da Vinci S system from December 2020 to February 2023. There were 31 adults, 14 children.
Results and Discussion. The average operation time was (210±15) minutes, the average hospital stay – (2±1.2) days. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions. The average duration of the operation is (210±15) minutes, the average hospital stay -- (2±1.2) days. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions. The advantages of performing robotic operations, in our opinion, were: stabilized three-dimensional stereoscopic control of the operating field, increased image clarity and depth perception beyond a standard laparoscopic monitor, digital 20-fold high-definition magnification provided greater confidence in the accuracy of surgical manipulations, increased maneuverability of of instruments created an additional degree freedom of movement from five to seven in the surgical field in patients with severe surgical pathology. This allows to significantly reduce the number of intraoperative complications (bleeding, damage to other organs).from five to seven in the surgical field in patients with severe surgical pathology. This allows to significantly reduce the number of intraoperative complications (bleeding, damage to other organs).
References
Barakat, E.E., Bedaiwy, M.A., Zimberg, S., Nutter, B., Nosseir, M., & Falcone, T. (2011). Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 117 (2 Part 1), 256-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318207854f
George, E.I., Brand, C.T.C., & Marescaux, J. (2018). Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, 22 (4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2018.00039
Intuitive Surgical Inc. Intuitive Annual Report 2019. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; 2019.
Intuitive. 2021.[citedonMay 07, 2022]. Available from: https://www.intuitive.com/en/about-us/company.
Kim, K.C. (Ed.). (2014). Robotics in general surgery (No. 15023). Springer New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8739-5
Kiely, D.J., Gotlieb, W.H., Lau, S., Zeng, X., Samouelian, V., Ramanakumar, A. V., ... & Press, J.Z. (2015). Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 9, 179-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0513-4
Mirkin, K.A., Kulaylat, A.S., Hollenbeak, C.S., & Messaris, E. (2018). Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for stage I–III colon cancer: oncologic and long-term survival outcomes. Surgical Endoscopy, 32, 2894-2901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5999-6
Muhammad Fahd Shah, Irfan ul Islam Nasir, & Amjad Parvaiz (2019). Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer, 35 (4), 247-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000500785
Uzunoglu, M., Altintoprak, F., Yalkin, O., & Özdemir, K. (2022). Robotic Surgery for the Treatment of Achalasia Cardia: Surgical Technique, Initial Experiences and Literature Review. Cureus, 14(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21510
Ngu, J.C.Y., Tsang, C.B.S., & Koh, D.C.S. (2017). The da Vinci Xi: a review of its capabilities, versatility, and potential role in robotic colorectal surgery. Robotic Surgery: Research and Reviews, 77-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RSRR.S119317
de’Angelis, N., Khan, J., Marchegiani, F., Bianchi, G., Aisoni, F., Alberti, D., ... & Catena, F. (2022). Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 17 (1), 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00410-6
Rivas-López, R., & Sandoval-García-Travesí, F.A. (2020). Robotic surgery in gynecology: review of literature. Cir Cir., 88 (1), 107-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24875/CIRU.18000636
Bramhe, S., & Pathak, S.S. (2022). Robotic surgery: A narrative review. Cureus, 14 (9). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29179
Sarlos, D., Kots, L., Stevanovic, N., von Felten, S., & Schär, G. (2012). Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 120 (3), 604-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a
Felder, S.I., Ramanathan, R., Russo, A.E., Jimenez-Rodriguez, R.M., Hogg, M. E., Zureikat, A.H., ... & Weiser, M.R. (2018). Robotic gastrointestinal surgery. Current Problems in Surgery, 55 (6), 198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpsurg.2018.07.001
Bottura, B., Porto, B., Moretti-Marques, R., Barison, G., Zlotnik, E., Podgaec, S., & Gomes, M.T.V. (2022). Surgeon experience, robotic perioperative outcomes, and complications in gynecology. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, 68, 1514-1518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20220113
Leal Ghezzi, T., & Campos Corleta, O. (2016). 30 years of robotic surgery. World Journal of Surgery, 40, 2550-2557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9
Tjeerdsma, M., Quinn, K.R., Helmer, S.D., & Vincent, K.B. (2022). Kans comparing outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional Laparoscopic Hiatal Hernia Repair. J Med., 24; 15, 365-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol15.18248
Wang, G., Wang, Z., Jiang, Z., Liu, J., Zhao, J., & Li, J. (2017). Male urinary and sexual function after robotic pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 13 (1), e1725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1725
Wang, X., Cao, G., Mao, W., Lao, W., & He, C. (2020). Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Cancer Res. Ther., 16 (5), 979-989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_533_18
Weber, P.A., & Stephen Merola, M.D., Annette Wasielewski, R.N., Garth H. Ballantyne, M.D. (2002). Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 45 (12), 1689-1696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-7261-2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 .
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish their work in Hospital Surgery. Journal by L. Ya. Kovalchuk agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
