Robotic‐Assisted Surgery: A Brief History to Understand Today’s Practices

Dunn, Debra

doi:10.1002/aorn.13629

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It consists of a surgeon's console, a bedside robotic arm system, and a high-de nition imaging system. Robotic surgery is the most advanced way to combine high technology and clinical surgery (20,21), and is widely used in the eld of surgical oncology treatment (22)(23)(24). In 2003, the da Vinci robot was rst applied to esophageal cancer resection (25), after which the results of several studies at home and abroad showed that the da Vinci robot minimally invasive esophageal cancer resection is safe and feasible, with signi cant advantages such as less intraoperative bleeding, better protection of the laryngeal recurrent nerve and more thorough lymph node clearance compared with ordinary lumpectomy(26-30), and an international consensus on robot-assisted minimally invasive esophageal resection was formed (31,32).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Xue

Liu

Lü

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The gold standard for treating resectable esophageal cancer is esophagectomy. Robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is a technique that bridges the gap between open esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery, although there is little evidence to support its superiority over traditional thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Method We included 159 patients who received TE and 35 patients who had RATE in this research after retrospectively analyzing clinical data from patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery at Qilu Hospital between August 2020 and August 2022. Both groups' intraoperative, postoperative, and preoperative patient characteristics were assessed. Results With regard to preoperative patient characteristics, all P values were greater than 0.05 in the TE and RATE groups except for height, and the preoperative characteristics of the two groups could be considered similar. In terms of intraoperative indices, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of TNM stage of resected tumor, tumor tissue type and ASA score. However, there were statistically significant differences between the TE and RATE groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, total number of lymph nodes resected, and number of lymph nodes resected in the thoracoabdominal cavity. Regarding postoperative characteristics, there were statistically significant differences in pain scores on the first postoperative day and chest drainage on the first postoperative day, and there were no significant differences in the remaining characteristics between the two data groups. Conclusion This study confirmed the feasibility and safety of RATE for esophageal cancer by comparing it with TE. We concluded that RATE does result in more complete lymph node clearance, reduced operative time and surgical bleeding, and postoperative relief of patient pain and chest drainage. We plan to conduct the next clinical study with long-term follow-up to evaluate the tumor clearance, recurrence and survival rates after receiving RATE for esophageal cancer to investigate the role of RATE in esophageal cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Xue

Liu

Lü

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has rapidly increased since the beginning of the 2000s. [1][2][3][4][5] Since the introduction of da Vinci instrumentation in 2001, 6 the number of RAS procedures has increased exponentially, for example, eight-fold in Michigan from 2012 to 2017. 3 Among 15,576 elective proctectomies during 2009-2015, the percentage of robotic-assisted proctectomies increased from 2% to 22%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 The number of publications on RAS indexed on PubMed was less than 10 each year before 2000 but more than 700 after 2017. 6 A major upside of robotic surgery is the increased dexterity of the laparoscopic instruments, allowing for more complicated movements and dissection. Its main advantages are better orientation in the three-dimensional image of the operating area and better manual precision and ergonomics for the surgeon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Robot-assisted pelvic and renal surgery compared with laparoscopic or open surgery: Literature review of cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes

Davidson

Sjödahl

et al. 2023

Scand J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical experiences and cost-effectiveness by comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic- or open surgery for pelvic and renal operations. Methods: A narrative review was carried out. Results: When using robotic-assisted surgery, oncological and functional results are similar to after laparoscopic or open surgery. One exception may be a shorter survival in cancer of the cervix uteri. In addition, postoperative complications after robotic-assisted surgery are similar, bleeding and transfusion needs are less, and the hospital stay is shorter but the preparation of the operating theater before and after surgery and the operation times are longer. Finally, robot-assisted surgery has, in several studies, been reported to be not cost-effective primarily due to high investment costs. However, more recent studies provide improved cost-effectiveness estimates due to more effective preparation of the operating theater before surgery, improved surgeon experience, and decreased investment costs. Conclusions: Complications and functional and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted surgery are similar to open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. The cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery is likely to equal or surpass the alternatives.

show abstract