Comparison of single access devices during cut and suturing tasks on simulator

Matos-Azevedo, Ana Maria; Martín-Portugués, I. Díaz-Güemes; Pérez-Duarte, Francisco J.; Sánchez-Hurtado, Miguel Ángel; Sánchez‐Margallo, Francisco M.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.06.017

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1) [21–34]. The search yielded up one randomized trial only, which compared X-Cone, SILS™ Port and GelPOINT devices [35]. X-Cone was associated with longer suturing task completion time compared to SILS™ or GelPOINT, otherwise no differences were found.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.MethodsAn expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.ResultsIn general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.ConclusionsConsidering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Since the introduction of TU SILC, different newly developed SAPI were innovated to facilitate its ergonomics which contribute to the higher cost of the procedure. 18 European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) recommended that one could consider associated costs for the selection of access devices, taking into account that specific reusable metal devices are available nowadays in single-incision endoscopic surgery. 19 To keep the balance between the current ongoing surgical innovation and advances in the surgical technology and our limited financial resources as in low economic country, we conducted this study in our university hospital to answer one question; Can we perform TU-SILC safely with the same laparoscopic set up we used to perform the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of the Conventional Laparoscopic Set-up in Trans Umbilical Cholecystectomy in Low Economic Country

Elnabil-Mortada

Elnagar

Iskandar

et al. 2023

Ain Shams Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy were described in the literature to achieve better cosmetic results. Trans umbilical cholecystectomy (TUC) gained popularity but with associated challenging ergonomic and higher cost due to the need of specialized access platform and instruments (SAPI). This has led to limiting their widespread especially in low economic countries. We aimed here to study the feasibility and safety of using the conventional laparoscopic set-up in performing trans umbilical cholecystectomy (TUC) in our tertiary care university hospital. Patients and methods:We conducted a prospective cohort study, from January 2016 to June 2018, eligible patients with symptomatic gall stones (100 cases) were divided into two groups: group A, TUC with conventional instruments (TUC-CI) versus group B, TUC with specialized instruments (TUC-SI). Exclusion criteria were acute cholecystitis, biliary pancreatitis, choledocholithiasis, BMI ≥ 35, previous upper abdominal surgeries, pregnancy, and ASA score higher than 2. Demographic data, perioperative complications, conversion rate, hospital stay, and procedure cost were recorded and statistically compared between the groups.Results: There was sample homogeneity between both groups regarding age, sex, and BMI. No significant difference (P -Value ≥0.05) between both groups regarding the mean operative time (48± 23.50, 45.5 ± 19.11), hospital stay (0.4 ± 1.06 vs 0.32 ± 0.84) respectively, postoperative complications, and conversion rate to CLC. No major intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery were needed in both groups. The cost of TUC-SI was significantly higher due to the cost of SAPI. Conclusions:Trans umbilical single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is feasible with the same set-up used in conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in selected patients without any additional cost of specialized access platform & instruments. CLC is still our primary procedure.

show abstract

“…Instrument collision, lack of triangulation, and in-line vision are among the main challenges of LESS surgery. Several techniques and advancements have been introduced to overcome constraints associated with this surgical approach such as novel access devices and curved, articulated, or pre-bent instruments [9,10]. The feasibility of LESS for almost all types of upper gastrointestinal procedures has been proved [11,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%