Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology · 2018
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair of ureteral injury: an evidence-based review of techniques and outcomes.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Tracey Andrew T, Eun Daniel D, Stifelman Michael D, Hemal Ashok K, Stein Robert J, Mottrie Alexandre, Cadeddu Jeffrey A, Stolzenburg J Uwe, Berger Andre K, Buffi Niccolò, Zhao Lee C, Lee Ziho, Hampton Lance, Porpiglia Francesco, Autorino Riccardo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Iatrogenic ureteral injuries represent a common surgical problem encountered by practicing urologists. With the rapidly expanding applications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, ureteral reconstruction has been an important field of recent advancement. This collaborative review sought to provide an evidence-based analysis of the latest surgical techniques and outcomes for robotic-assisted repair of ureteral injury.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature up to December 2017 using PubMed/Medline was performed to identify relevant articles. Those studies included in the systematic review were selected according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria. Additionally, expert opinions were included from study authors in order to critique outcomes and elaborate on surgical techniques. A cumulative outcome analysis was conducted analyzing comparative studies on robotic versus open ureteral repair.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirteen case series have demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and success of robotic ureteral reconstruction. The surgical planning, timing of intervention, and various robotic reconstructive techniques need to be tailored to the specific case, depending on the location and length of the injury. Fluorescence imaging can represent a useful tool in this setting. Recently, three studies have shown the feasibility and technical success of robotic buccal mucosa grafting for ureteral repair. Soon, additional novel and experimental robotic reconstructive approaches might become available. The cumulative analysis of the three available comparative studies on robotic versus open ureteral repair showed no difference in operative time or complication rate, with a decreased blood loss and hospital length of stay favoring the robotic approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the robotic surgical platform facilitates complex ureteral reconstruction in a minimally invasive fashion. High success rates of ureteral repair using the robotic approach mirror those of open surgery, with the additional advantage of faster recovery. Novel techniques in development and surgical adjuncts show promise as the role of robotic surgery evolves.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature up to December 2017 using PubMed/Medline was performed to identify relevant articles. Those studies included in the systematic review were selected according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria. Additionally, expert opinions were included from study authors in order to critique outcomes and elaborate on surgical techniques. A cumulative outcome analysis was conducted analyzing comparative studies on robotic versus open ureteral repair.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirteen case series have demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and success of robotic ureteral reconstruction. The surgical planning, timing of intervention, and various robotic reconstructive techniques need to be tailored to the specific case, depending on the location and length of the injury. Fluorescence imaging can represent a useful tool in this setting. Recently, three studies have shown the feasibility and technical success of robotic buccal mucosa grafting for ureteral repair. Soon, additional novel and experimental robotic reconstructive approaches might become available. The cumulative analysis of the three available comparative studies on robotic versus open ureteral repair showed no difference in operative time or complication rate, with a decreased blood loss and hospital length of stay favoring the robotic approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that the robotic surgical platform facilitates complex ureteral reconstruction in a minimally invasive fashion. High success rates of ureteral repair using the robotic approach mirror those of open surgery, with the additional advantage of faster recovery. Novel techniques in development and surgical adjuncts show promise as the role of robotic surgery evolves.