American journal of veterinary research · 2023
Preliminary experience with robotic cholecystectomy illustrates feasibility in a canine cadaver model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buote Nicole, Chalon Antoine, Maire Jérôme, Berte Nicolas, Tran Nguyen, Mazeaud Charles
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and describe the relevant differences between robotic cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a canine model.
SAMPLE: Canine cadavers (n = 4) weighing between 30 and 42 kg.
METHODS: Dogs were positioned in dorsal recumbency. A surgical robot was used to perform the RC and was placed at the cranial aspect of the surgical table. One 12-mm and 3 8-mm robotic ports and 1 5-mm laparoscopic port were placed as needed to perform the RC. The specific steps of the procedure were described and timed. Perceived differences between psychomotor skills between robotics and laparoscopy were noted.
RESULTS: RC was successful in all dogs, but minor intraoperative complications did occur during the manipulation of the gallbladder in 1 dog. The median length of time for ports to be appropriately docked was 19.5 minutes, and the median procedure time was 119.5 minutes. Psychomotor skills specific to robotics can be learned during this procedure.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Robotic cholecystectomy is feasible. RC allowed for experience with the different psychomotor skills utilized with robotic instrumentation and may be an appropriate training procedure for veterinary surgeons wishing to gain basic experience with robotic instrumentation.
SAMPLE: Canine cadavers (n = 4) weighing between 30 and 42 kg.
METHODS: Dogs were positioned in dorsal recumbency. A surgical robot was used to perform the RC and was placed at the cranial aspect of the surgical table. One 12-mm and 3 8-mm robotic ports and 1 5-mm laparoscopic port were placed as needed to perform the RC. The specific steps of the procedure were described and timed. Perceived differences between psychomotor skills between robotics and laparoscopy were noted.
RESULTS: RC was successful in all dogs, but minor intraoperative complications did occur during the manipulation of the gallbladder in 1 dog. The median length of time for ports to be appropriately docked was 19.5 minutes, and the median procedure time was 119.5 minutes. Psychomotor skills specific to robotics can be learned during this procedure.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Robotic cholecystectomy is feasible. RC allowed for experience with the different psychomotor skills utilized with robotic instrumentation and may be an appropriate training procedure for veterinary surgeons wishing to gain basic experience with robotic instrumentation.