Investigative and clinical urology · 2023
Laparoscopic renal surgery using multi degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instruments in a porcine model.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kim Jong Keun, Kang Bosik, Kim Yu Seon, Yun Yujin, Jang Myoung Jin, Bae Donghwan, You Dalsan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We evaluated the performance of a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument, ArtiSential, and compared it with that of a straight-shaped instrument and the da Vinci surgical system, in renal surgery using porcine model.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine female Yorkshire pigs were equally divided into three groups. The three groups were compared at each surgical step in terms of objective and subjective parameters.
RESULTS: The median operative times for renal pedicle clamping and ureter dissection were significantly shorter in ArtiSential group than robotic group (1.3 min vs. 4.7 min, p=0.002; 8.1 min vs. 11.1 min, p=0.015). The median operative time for bladder repair was significantly longer in ArtiSential group than robotic and straight-shaped groups (17.9 min vs. 5.5 min, p=0.002; 17.9 min vs. 9.3 min, p=0.026). There were no significant differences among groups in terms of blood loss or intraoperative complications. ArtiSential device was less useable for renorrhaphy (p=0.009) and bladder repair (p=0.002) compared to the robotic system. ArtiSential group was less accurate than robotic group in terms of tumor resection, renorrhaphy, and bladder repair. During ureter dissection, bladder cuff excision, and bladder repair, the surgeon experienced greater wrist discomfort but lesser back discomfort in ArtiSential group than robotic group.
CONCLUSIONS: For most steps, ArtiSential performed as well as robotic and straight-shaped instruments. The development of specialized surgical techniques for ArtiSential will maximize the advantages of these instruments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine female Yorkshire pigs were equally divided into three groups. The three groups were compared at each surgical step in terms of objective and subjective parameters.
RESULTS: The median operative times for renal pedicle clamping and ureter dissection were significantly shorter in ArtiSential group than robotic group (1.3 min vs. 4.7 min, p=0.002; 8.1 min vs. 11.1 min, p=0.015). The median operative time for bladder repair was significantly longer in ArtiSential group than robotic and straight-shaped groups (17.9 min vs. 5.5 min, p=0.002; 17.9 min vs. 9.3 min, p=0.026). There were no significant differences among groups in terms of blood loss or intraoperative complications. ArtiSential device was less useable for renorrhaphy (p=0.009) and bladder repair (p=0.002) compared to the robotic system. ArtiSential group was less accurate than robotic group in terms of tumor resection, renorrhaphy, and bladder repair. During ureter dissection, bladder cuff excision, and bladder repair, the surgeon experienced greater wrist discomfort but lesser back discomfort in ArtiSential group than robotic group.
CONCLUSIONS: For most steps, ArtiSential performed as well as robotic and straight-shaped instruments. The development of specialized surgical techniques for ArtiSential will maximize the advantages of these instruments.