Comparison of active versus passive robotic-endoscope-holder-assisted unisurgeon uniportal thoracoscopic surgery in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety.
Unisurgeon
robotic endoscope holder
uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (uniportal VATS)
Journal
Journal of thoracic disease
ISSN: 2072-1439
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Dis
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101533916
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2023
31 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
05
01
2023
accepted:
09
06
2023
medline:
10
8
2023
pubmed:
10
8
2023
entrez:
10
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few studies have compared robotic-arm-assisted unisurgeon uniportal surgeries with conventional human-assisted uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (VATSs) in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety. In the present study, we compared the aforementioned surgeries. We explored two robotic endoscope holders-a passive robotic platform (ENDOFIX No significant differences were observed among the EA, MA, and HA groups. The success rate of robotic-arm-assisted unisurgeon uniportal wedge resection was 100%, regardless of the group. No major differences were noted in preparation time between the EA and MA groups. Segmentectomy was more favorable in the EA group than in the MA group. The rates of surgical conversion were 5% and 60% in the EA and MA groups, respectively. The EA and MA groups did not differ considerably from the HA group in terms of postoperative complications. Unisurgeon uniportal wedge resection may be effectively performed using a robotic endoscope holder, without the need for any human assistants with an expert hand. However, the rate of surgical conversion increases with the complexity of uniportal anatomic resections. The passive platform appears to be more suitable for unisurgeon uniportal surgery than the active pedal-controlled platform given the equipment in contemporary operating rooms.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Few studies have compared robotic-arm-assisted unisurgeon uniportal surgeries with conventional human-assisted uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (VATSs) in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety. In the present study, we compared the aforementioned surgeries.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We explored two robotic endoscope holders-a passive robotic platform (ENDOFIX
Results
UNASSIGNED
No significant differences were observed among the EA, MA, and HA groups. The success rate of robotic-arm-assisted unisurgeon uniportal wedge resection was 100%, regardless of the group. No major differences were noted in preparation time between the EA and MA groups. Segmentectomy was more favorable in the EA group than in the MA group. The rates of surgical conversion were 5% and 60% in the EA and MA groups, respectively. The EA and MA groups did not differ considerably from the HA group in terms of postoperative complications.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Unisurgeon uniportal wedge resection may be effectively performed using a robotic endoscope holder, without the need for any human assistants with an expert hand. However, the rate of surgical conversion increases with the complexity of uniportal anatomic resections. The passive platform appears to be more suitable for unisurgeon uniportal surgery than the active pedal-controlled platform given the equipment in contemporary operating rooms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37559654
doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-19
pii: jtd-15-07-3800
pmc: PMC10407473
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3800-3810Informations de copyright
2023 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-19/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2022 Jun 1;34(6):1016-1023
pubmed: 34687546
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009 Jan;394(1):179-83
pubmed: 18575884
Chest. 2020 May;157(5):1313-1321
pubmed: 31589843
Am J Med. 2020 Jul;133(7):e343-e354
pubmed: 32061733
Surg Endosc. 2022 Jul;36(7):5501-5509
pubmed: 35132451
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Jan;49 Suppl 1:i73-8
pubmed: 26464450
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004 Dec;14(6):323-7
pubmed: 15599295
Ann Thorac Surg. 2010 Aug;90(2):467-73
pubmed: 20667331
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1880-1889
pubmed: 30259160
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Feb;155(2):824-829
pubmed: 29221739
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Aug;30(8):2677-2695
pubmed: 33547914
Laryngoscope. 2016 Aug;126(8):1893-8
pubmed: 26535476
Am Surg. 2021 Jun;87(6):855-863
pubmed: 34176319
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jul;33(7):2206-2216
pubmed: 30334160
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Aug;120(2):414-5
pubmed: 10917966
J Vis Surg. 2017 Nov 07;3:163
pubmed: 29302439
Laryngoscope. 2016 Mar;126(3):566-9
pubmed: 26372615
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Apr;101(4):1297-302
pubmed: 26794888
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020 Jan 1;57(1):100-106
pubmed: 31243441
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2020 Jun;67(6):1530-1541
pubmed: 31494541
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Aug;110(2):692-696
pubmed: 32278755
Curr Opin Urol. 2022 Mar 1;32(2):131-140
pubmed: 34939597
Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb;31(2):981-986
pubmed: 27369284