Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5193_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
65 Мб
Скачать
250
Fig. 19.15 Evaluation of perfusion. Indocyanine green administered intravenously can be used to evaluate perfusion of gastric pouch after revision via the FireFly function of the robot
M. Nessen and C. A. Galvani
provides feedback by giving a message that the “Tissue too thick to re.” The con­sole surgeon chooses whether to abort the re or override and complete the re. It is worth mentioning this feature is only available with black reloads.
• Nonadjustable gastric band (NAGB): Extensive lysis of adhesions is usually required during this case since these cases were routinely performed in an open fashion. Finding and removing the band from the perigastric position is an essen­tial step of the procedure. If the band cannot be removed due to adhesions, then excision of the stomach proximal and distal of the band should be performed. Alternatively, if the band is eroded into the gastric lumen, transgastric removal of the band can be attempted. Reconstruction will most likely be in the shape of a gastric bypass.
• Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB): Excision of the perigastric cap­sule created by the band is essential to prevent staple misring (Fig.19.16). Common conversion procedures post LAGB removal are SG and gastric bypass. Usual stapler reloads for either gastric bypass or sleeve conversion are blue, green, or black depending on tissue thickness.
• LSG—conversion to gastric bypass: Adhesiolysis is performed from the antrum of the stomach progressing in a cephalad direction until the angle of His. If a neofundus is present, it should be complete freed and excised during the creation of the gastric pouch. Usual stapler reloads for pouch creation are either blue or green. Care must be taken to identify clips on the staple line from the index pro­cedure. If the intention is to preserve the sleeve and conversion to duodenal switch, dissection of the inferior aspect of the sleeve is performed until the rst portion of the duodenum (2–3cm distal to the pylorus). In patients with chronic sleeve stulas, conversion to esophagojejunostomy must be considered (Fig.19.17).
19 Revisional Foregut andBariatric Surgery
Fig. 19.16 AGB removal. Adhesions around the band and excision of the capsule are facilitated by the robotic platform
Fig. 19.17 Conversion of SG to esophagojejunostomy. Hand-sewn esophagojejunostomy performed with robotic platform safe and feasible
251
• Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG): Conversion to gastric bypass; the gastric pouch must be created proximal to the ostoma and medial to the gastro-gastric staple line of the VBG.It is our practice to excise the fundus and most of the body of the stomach that includes the previous staple line. For this purpose, the short gastric vessels are taken down with vessel sealer. Stapler reloads for the gastric resection are usually black or green.
• RYGB: It is crucial to delineate the anatomy of the gastric bypass at the beginning of the procedure. The remnant stomach is dissected off the gastric pouch with robotic monopolar scissors. Then the posterior aspect of the GJA and the proximal alimentary limb are also dissected off. If the gastric bypass reconstruction was done, retro-colic/retro-gastric further dissection may be necessary to be able to perform the reconstruction with no tension. Also, if a
252
M. Nessen and C. A. Galvani
banded bypass was performed the previous nonadjustable band must be removed. Once the anastomosis is freed (Fig.19.18), the gastric pouch is transected proximal to the GJA with linear stapler with either blue or green reload. The proximal jejunum is also transected with a white reload along with the mesentery of the small bowel. There are multiple options for revi­sion of a gastric bypass, including revision of the GJA anastomosis, pouch trimming, distalization, lengthening procedure, and conversion to duodenal switch and reversal.
5. GI Reconstruction
Commonly, the GI reconstruction is carried out in the form of gastric bypass
(gastrojejunostomy). However, a hand-sewn anastomosis (HSA) can be performed during reversal/conversion procedures such as gastro-gastrostomy, duodeno­ileostomy, or esophago-jejunostomy. Our HSA preferred technique is a continu­ous double-layered anastomosis constructed with barbed sutures and almost identical in every situation (Fig.19.19). Whenever possible, our preference is for an antecolic- antegastric anastomosis. For the purpose of this chapter, we will describe our GJA technique (32). The ligament of Treitz is identied and the small bowel is run distal to the ligament, and a loop was chosen that will be able to reach the upper abdomen (100 cm). Then the small bowel loop was attached to the proximal stomach with a running 3-0 absorbable barbed suture to create the omega loop. A gastrotomy and jejunotomy are created with monopolar scissors. To create the gastrotomy, the anesthesia team will advance the bougie slowly to create tenting of the anterior wall of the stomach; at this time, the gastrotomy is carried out with cautery against the bougie. Then a 1.5–2cm gastrojejunostomy was “hand-sewn” in two layers using two needle drivers and absorbable 6-inch barbed sutures (x3). Starting from lateral to medial, an inner posterior layer of running 3-0 absorbable barbed suture is created with full-thickness bites between the stomach and jejunum. Once the posterior layer is completed, the bougie is advanced into the jejunum to stent the anastomosis. Finally, two anterior layers of running seromuscular (Lembert sutures) absorbable 6-inch 3-0 barbed sutures are
Fig. 19.18 Mobilization and resection of gastrojejunal anastomosis. Revision of gastric bypass may include recreation of gastrojejunal anastomosis. Here the old anastomosis including proximal alimentary limb is being resected with plan for reconstruction
19 Revisional Foregut andBariatric Surgery
Fig. 19.19 Hand-sewn anastomosis. A two­layered hand-sewn anastomosis is created with running barbed 3-0 absorbable suture
Fig. 19.20 Leak test. Positive leak test with bubbles constantly seen coming from anastomosis submerged in saline
253
used. Once this is completed, the alimentary limb is clamped distally and the upper abdomen was lled with water to perform an air leak test. The robotic image is switched to TilePro™ that enables the endoscopic view to be incorpo­rated into the surgical eld of view within the console. The gastroscope is inserted into the patient’s esophagus insufating along the way. The gastric pouch is entered, and the anastomosis is traversed. If no air leak is observed, the procedure is completed. If there is a positive leak, further investigation is warranted (Fig.19.20).
(a) If needed and depending on the type of revisional procedure to be performed,
the entire length of the small should be counted.
(b) The HSA has the advantages of allowing for direct examination of the anasto-
mosis, reducing the risk of bleeding, and can be used in situations where the use of stapler would be contraindicated like such us poor quality or thicker tissue. In addition, it has decreased long-term complications such as strictures.
(c) The most notable advantages of the use of robotics for the HSA are the sur-
geon’s autonomy, decreased variability, and reproducibility that lead to better quality anastomosis.
254
M. Nessen and C. A. Galvani
Outcomes
It was common knowledge that revisional bariatric surgery is complex and has an increased rate of complications. Yet, the implementation of robotic-assisted revi­sional bariatric surgery has shown to be safe and effective whether it is performed in the presence of complications or insufcient weight loss or weight regain after the primary procedure [28, 3335]. Several case series have reported shorter length of stay and decreased readmission and anastomotic complications. In addition, the robot may also decrease conversion rates to open surgery [36]. Reported outcomes demonstrate additional weight loss and resolution of associated medical conditions. Increased costs associated with robotic surgery have consistently been described as pitfalls to its implementation. Streamlining of technique and instrumentation costs can be potentially mitigated.
For patients who are considered candidates for robotic revisional bariatric sur-
gery, an extensive workup is justied to delineate the anatomy of the index proce­dure. Even though robotics offers a good safety prole to revisional surgery, it is critical for the operating surgeon to have substantial experience not only with pri­mary bariatric surgery but robotic surgery to prevent complications.

References

1. Dallemagne B, Weerts J, Markiewicz S, Dewandre JM, Wahlen C, Monami B, et al. Clinical results of laparoscopic fundoplication at ten years after surgery. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(1):159–65.
2. Wittgrove AC, Clark GW, Tremblay LJ.Laparoscopic gastric bypass, roux-en-Y: preliminary report of ve cases. Obes Surg Incl Laparosc Allied Care. 1994;4(4):353–7.
3. Grant AM, Boachie C, Cotton SC, Faria R, Bojke L, Epstein DM, etal. Clinical and eco­nomic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery compared with medical management for gastro­oesophageal reux disease: 5-year follow-up of multicentre randomised trial (the REFLUX trial). Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(22):1–167.
4. Clapp B, Ponce J, DeMaria E, Ghanem O, Hutter M, Kothari S, LaMasters T, Kurian M, English W.American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery 2020 estimate of metabolic and bar­iatric procedures performed in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18(9):1134–40.
5. Oelschlager BK, Lal DR, Jensen E, Cahill M, Quiroga E, Pellegrini CA.Mediumand long­term outcome of laparoscopic redo fundoplication. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1817–23.
6. Brethauer SA, Kothari S, Sudan R, etal. Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2014;10(5):952–72.
7. SAGES Guidelines Committee. SAGES guideline for clinical application of laparoscopic bar­iatric surgery. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(10):2281–300.
8. Slater BJ, Dirks RC, McKinley SK, Ansari MT, Kohn GP, Thosani N, Qumseya B, Billmeier S, Daly S, Crawford C, Ehlers AP, Hollands C, Palazzo F, Rodriguez N, Train A, Wassenaar E, Walsh D, Pryor AD, Stefanidis D.SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastro­esophageal reux (GERD). Surg Endosc. 2021;35(9):4903–17.
9. Kohn GP, Price RR, DeMeester SR, Zehetner J, Muensterer OJ, Awad Z, Mittal SK, Richardson WS, Stefanidis D, Fanelli RD, SAGES Guidelines Committee. Guidelines for the management of hiatal hernia. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(12):4409–28.
19 Revisional Foregut andBariatric Surgery
10. Dreifuss NH, Mangano A, Hassan C, Masrur MA.Robotic Revisional bariatric surgery: a high-volume center experience. Obes Surg. 2021;31(4):1656–63.
11. Patti MG, Allaix ME, Fisichella PM.Analysis of the causes of failed Antireux surgery and the principles of treatment: A review. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(6):585–90.
12. Smith CD, McClusky DA, Rajad MA, Lederman AB, Hunter JG.When fundoplication fails: redo? Ann Surg. 2005;241(6):861–9; discussion 869–71.
13. Furnee EJB, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Gooszen HG. Surgical reintervention after failed antireux surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:1539–49.
14. Owen B, Simorov A, Siref A, et al. How does robotic anti-reux surgery compare with tra­ditional open and laparoscopic techniques: a cost and outcomes analysis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1686–90.
15. Tolboom RC, Draaisma WA, Broeders IAMJ.Evaluation of conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopicredo hiatal hernia and antireux surgery: a cohort study. J Robot Surg. 2016;10:33–9.
16. Elmously A, Gray KD, Ullmann TM, Fahey TJ 3rd, Afaneh C, Zarnegar R.Robotic Reoperative anti-reux surgery: low perioperative morbidity and high symptom resolution. World J Surg. 2018;42(12):4014–21.
17. Carbo AI, Kim RH, Gates T, D’Agostino HR.Imaging ndings of successful and failed fundo­plication. Radiographics. 2014;34(7):1873–84.
18. Vetter TR, Bader AM.Continued evolution of perioperative medicine: realizing its full poten­tial. Anesth Analg. 2020;130:804–7.
19. Jindal P, Patil V, Pradhan R, Mahajan HC, Rani A, Pabba UG.Update on preoperative evalua­tion and optimisation. Indian J Anaesth. 2023;67(1):39–47.
20. Jobe BA, Kahrilas PJ, Vernon AH, etal. Endoscopic appraisal of the gastroesophageal valve after antireux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(2):233–43.
21. Awais O, Luketich JD, Tam J, Irshad K, Schuchert MJ, Landreneau RJ, Pennathur A.Roux­en- Y near esophagojejunostomy for intractable gastroesophageal reux after antireux sur­gery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(6):1954–9. discussion 1959–61
22. Terry ML, Vernon A, Hunter JG.Stapled-wedge Collis gastroplasty for the shortened esopha­gus. Am J Surg. 2004;188:195–9.
23. Symons NRA, Purkayastha S, Dillemans B, etal. Laparoscopic revision of failed antireux surgery: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2011;202:336–43.
24. Soliman BG, Nguyen DT, Chan EY, Chihara RK, Meisenbach LM, Graviss EA, Kim MP.Robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(6):2495–502.
25. Gerull WD, Cho D, Arefanian S, Kushner BS, Awad MM. Favorable peri-operative out­comes observed in paraesophageal hernia repair with robotic approach. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(6):3085–9.
26. English WJ, DeMaria EJ, Hutter MM, etal. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery 2018 estimate of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2020;16(4):457–63.
27. Park JY, Kim YJ.Revisional bariatric surgery. In: Choi SH, Kasama K, editors. Bariatric and metabolic surgery. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2014.
28. Snyder B, Wilson T, Woodruff V, Wilson E.Robotically assisted revision of bariatric surgeries is safe and effective to achieve further weight loss. World J Surg. 2013;37(11):2569–73.
29. Economopoulos KP, Theocharidis V, McKenzie TJ, et al. Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Roux­En- Y Gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2015;25(11):2180–9.
30. El Chaar M, King K, Pastrana M, Galvez A, Stoltzfus J.Outcomes of robotic surgery in revi­sional bariatric cases: a propensity score-matched analysis of the MBSAQIP registry. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(2):235–9.
31. Cheng YL, Elli EF.Role of robotic surgery in complex Revisional bariatric procedures. Obes Surg. 2021;31(6):2583–9.
255
256
32. Galvani CA.Robotic Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass (RA-RYGB). In: Gharagozloo F, Patel VR, Giulianotti PC, Poston R, Gruessner R, Meyer M, editors. Robotic surgery. Cham: Springer;
2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3- 030- 53594- 0_59.
33. Inabnet WB, Belle SH, Bessler M, etal. Comparison of 30-day outcomes after non LapBand primary and revisional bariatric surgical procedures from the longitudinal assessment of bar­iatric surgery study. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2010;6(1):22–30.
34. Bindal V, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Elli EF.Outcomes of robot-assisted roux-en-Y gastric bypass as a Reoperative bariatric procedure. Obes Surg. 2015;25:1810.
35. Gray KD, Moore MD, Elmously A, etal. Obes Surg. 2018;28:1852.
36. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Azagury DE, etal. Robotic revisional bariatric surgery: a comparative study with laparoscopic and open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(2):213–7.
M. Nessen and C. A. Galvani

Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Inguinal Hernia Repair

SamuelGuba andRichardLu

Introduction

More than 20 million inguinal hernia repairs are performed annually worldwide. In the United States, it is among the top ve most common major outpatient operations performed in males over 18years of age [1]. There has been a shift toward mini­mally invasive inguinal hernia repair (MI IHR) from open techniques, particularly with recent rapid adoption of robotic technology. MI IHR has been associated with decreased early postoperative pain, earlier return to daily activities, and decreased analgesic use compared to open repair [2].
A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated the overall recurrence rate after MI IHR was 1.2%, with other studies demonstrating risk of chronic pain being around 2.1%, risk for seroma/hematoma around 4.1%, and risk of skin/soft tissue infection at 2.9% [35]. It is important to note that negative consequences from inguinal hernia repair can be devastating, thus highlighting the importance of hav­ing a solid foundation of inguinal anatomy and sound operative techniques.
20

Preoperative Evaluation

The workup for an inguinal hernia begins with a thorough history and physical examination. Most inguinal hernias can be diagnosed with exam alone; however, equivocal exam ndings with a high suspicion for inguinal hernia disease warrants further evaluation. Additional imaging with either ultrasound or CT can be obtained. This can provide valuable information in diagnosing an occult hernia, contralateral disease, or elucidating complex anatomy such as in the setting of recurrence or scrotal involvement. Modiable risk factors such as diabetes, smoking, chronic
S. Guba · R. Lu (*) Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA e-mail: rllu@utmb.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 S. Samreen et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Robotic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86927-3_20
257
258
S. Guba and R. Lu
cough, COPD, and obesity should be optimized. There is substantial literature that highlights elective hernia repair should be deferred in patients with an A1c greater than 8%. In our practice, we further recommend smoking cessation and reaching a BMI of less than 35 prior to elective hernia repair. Patients should be counseled on the risks of the procedure which are discussed later in the chapter. Furthermore, the nding of a contralateral hernia should be discussed with the patient as these are found in 10–25% of patients [6].
Multiple operative techniques for inguinal hernia repair exist and can be catego­rized by anterior versus posterior approaches, each with mesh and non-mesh options. MI IHR is typically synonymous with posterior mesh approaches and has demon­strated advantages over open repair techniques including decreased postoperative and chronic pain as well as quicker return to normal activities [7]. MI IHR has been suggested as the preferred approach in primary unilateral groin hernias in males, bilateral inguinal hernias, femoral hernias, and women given their high incidence of femoral hernias [8]. As MI IHR typically refers to a posterior mesh approach, it is the method of choice for managing inguinal hernia recurrences following an open ante­rior approach. The most common types of MI IHR include the transabdominal pre­peritoneal (TAPP) and the totally extraperitoneal (TEP) approaches. The TAPP approach typically has a shorter learning curve than TEP and has other advantages such as the ability to rapidly assess the contralateral groin for a concomitant hernia and visualization of structure both above and below the peritoneal ap to prevent injury to underlying intra-abdominal viscera. Advantages for the TEP approach include the ability to avoid the intraperitoneal space and obviating the need for peri­toneal ap closure. However, TEP can be cumbersome due to limited working space and closely placed trocars. This can be further complicated with docking of the robotic platform. In addition, the ease of robotic suturing lessens the advantage of minimal suturing in TEP versus TAPP. Contraindications to MI IHR include inability to tolerate general anesthesia or pneumoperitoneum, severe ascites, strangulated her­nia with concurrent sepsis, and extensive intra-abdominal adhesions. History of pre­vious pelvic surgery such as prostatectomy may also deter one from selective minimally invasive approach.

Robotic TAPP

Patient Positioning andPreparation
The patient is placed on the operating room table in the supine position with both arms tucked and pressure points padded. The patient’s hips should be positioned over the break of the bed in case exion is needed. This expands the distance between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the costal margins to facilitate port placement. We routinely do not place a Foley catheter unless the patient has a signicant history of urinary problems or if the bladder is suspected to be involved in the hernia. Hair removal is completed with clippers, as this has a lower incidence of SSI than shaving. Routine usage of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective inguinal
20 Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Inguinal Hernia Repair
hernia repair with mesh placement remains a controversial topic. The European Hernia Society does not recommend routine prophylaxis in the setting of elective inguinal hernia repairs using mesh in low-risk patients. However, antibiotic prophy­laxis may be considered in certain high-risk scenarios such as in the setting of immunosuppression, recurrence, old age, long surgery duration, or in facilities with high SSI rates >4–5% [9].
259
Instrumentation
The authors predominantly use three main instruments during robotic TAPP: mono­polar curved scissors, fenestrated bipolar forceps, and the Mega SutureCut™ needle driver (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Should more robust grasping strength be necessary, a ProGrasp™ forceps or force bipolar are useful options; however, care should be used when manipulating delicate tissue such as viscera. A Cadiere forceps or Tip-Up fenestrated grasper can be useful instruments for retraction via a fourth assistant port if necessary.
Trocar Placement andDocking
Pneumoperitoneum should be established with the surgeon’s preferred technique. In our practice, we typically establish pneumoperitoneum using a Veress needle at Palmer’s point. An optical trocar is then placed in the midline at least 15cm away from symphysis pubis and the Veress needle is removed under direct visualization. Two additional working ports are placed directly lateral to the initial trocar with a minimum distance of 8cm from each other. A fourth assistant port may be placed for retraction in challenging cases. The operating table is then placed in Trendelenburg to at least 15° and rotated away from the side of the hernia, to slide intra-abdominal viscera away from the operative eld. It is important to evaluate for a contralateral inguinal hernia. For operative efciency, mesh and suture can be placed into the abdomen at this time. The robot is then docked and the robotic instruments are deployed into the eld.
Dissection
The peritoneal incision is started at least 4cm away from the defect with the ap extending from the ASIS to the median umbilical fold targeting the preperitoneal space. If performing bilateral hernia repair, extension of the peritoneal incision across the midline to the contralateral ASIS can be completed or another peritoneal incision can be made depending on surgeon’s preference.
Recently, the critical view of the myopectineal orice (CV of the MPO) was developed using best practices to standardize the dissection performed during MI IHR [10]. The following steps must be achieved but may be performed in any order: