Laparoscopic vs open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of surgical margin status and survival

Nicolás, Miguel Ángel; Czerwonko, Matías E.; Ardiles, Victoria; Clariá, Rodrigo Sanchez; Mazza, Oscar; Santibañés, Eduardo de; Pekolj, Juan; Santibañes, Martín de

doi:10.1007/s00423-021-02396-2

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Novel surgical procedures such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) also benefit the patients, as it is often associated with lower patient morbidity, infection, and a shorter hospital stay. [2][3][4] However, it is important to highlight that surgical techniques today have increased in complexity compared to previous decades. Procedures like endoscopic or laparoscopic surgery have restricted the surgeon's visual field to 2-D instead of the traditional 3-D view in open surgeries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room

Zhang,

Wu,

Zheng

2023

Surg Innov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent years, numerous innovative yet challenging surgeries, such as minimally invasive procedures, have introduced an overwhelming amount of new technologies, increasing the cognitive load for surgeons and potentially diluting their attention. Cognitive support technologies (CSTs) have been in development to reduce surgeons’ cognitive load and minimize errors. Despite its huge demands, it still lacks a systematic review. Methods Literature was searched up until May 21st, 2021. Pubmed, Web of Science, and IEEExplore. Studies that aimed at reducing the cognitive load of surgeons were included. Additionally, studies that contained an experimental trial with real patients and real surgeons were prioritized, although phantom and animal studies were also included. Major outcomes that were assessed included surgical error, anatomical localization accuracy, total procedural time, and patient outcome. Results A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, the implementation of CSTs had better surgical performance than the traditional methods. Most studies reported decreased error rate and increased efficiency. In terms of accuracy, most CSTs had over 90% accuracy in identifying anatomical markers with an error margin below 5 mm. Most studies reported a decrease in surgical time, although some were statistically insignificant. Discussion CSTs have been shown to reduce the mental workload of surgeons. However, the limited ergonomic design of current CSTs has hindered their widespread use in the clinical setting. Overall, more clinical data on actual patients is needed to provide concrete evidence before the ubiquitous implementation of CSTs.

show abstract