Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Disclaimer for Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Manual
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Commercialization
- •References
- •References
- •3: Asensus Surgical: Senhance Surgical System
- •Asensus Surgical: Senhance Surgical System
- •Senhance System Console
- •Straight Stick Instruments
- •Articulating Instruments
- •Energy
- •Intelligent Surgical Unit
- •Advanced Intelligent Surgical Unit Features
- •Senhance Connect
- •Surgeons Console Design
- •Arm Cart Design
- •The Hugo RAS™ System
- •Robotic Arms
- •The Surgeon’s Console
- •System Tower
- •Arm Cart
- •Hugo Instruments
- •Future Developments
- •References
- •5: Versius Surgical Robot
- •Introduction
- •System Design
- •Surgeon Console
- •Disclaimers
- •The Head-Up Display (HUD)
- •Some Important Icons
- •Alarm Icons
- •Arm Modes
- •Arm Clash
- •System Connections
- •Approved Procedures
- •Some Important Safety Features
- •Conclusion
- •6: Virtual Incision: MIRA Surgical System
- •Introduction
- •The MIRA Surgical System
- •Indication
- •Additional Technical Information
- •Clinical Data
- •Telesurgery
- •Purpose
- •Adopting
- •Operationalizing
- •Standardizing
- •Lessons
- •Conclusion
- •Bibliography
- •Introduction
- •Curricula Components
- •Web-Based Training
- •Virtual Simulation
- •Bedside Skills
- •Console Training
- •Training Programs
- •Intuitive Surgical Da Vinci Curriculum
- •Robotic Training Network (RTN)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •9: Digital Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Advanced Visualization
- •3D Visualization
- •Fluorescence-Guided Surgery
- •Augmented Reality
- •Current Implementation
- •Enhanced Instrumentation
- •Data Capture
- •Video Data
- •Data Analytics
- •Artificial Intelligence
- •Surgical Decision-Making
- •Skills Assessment
- •Patient Care
- •Automated Surgery
- •Connectivity
- •Telementoring
- •Education
- •Clinical Practice
- •Telesurgery
- •Robotic Surgical Platforms
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Foundational Knowledge
- •Practical Skills
- •Continuing Education
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Robotic Surgery Curriculum
- •Surgical Decision-Making
- •Surgical Technique
- •Operative Technique
- •Facebook™ Groups
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •12: Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Features
- •Diagnosis
- •Endoscopic Functional Luminal Imaging Probe (EndoFLIP)
- •Treatment
- •Pharmacotherapy
- •Endoscopic Treatment
- •Botulinum Toxin Injection
- •Pneumatic Dilation
- •Per-oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM)
- •Heller Myotomy
- •Operative Steps
- •Liver Retraction
- •Hiatal Dissection
- •Myotomy
- •Partial Fundoplication
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Esophageal Perforation
- •Gastric Perforation
- •Vagal Nerve Injury
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •14: Robotic Esophagectomy
- •Introduction
- •Robotic-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy
- •Abdominal Phase
- •Thoracic Phase
- •Robotic-Assisted McKeown Esophagectomy
- •Thoracic Phase
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Local Resection: “Wedge Gastrectomy”
- •Lymphadenectomy
- •Proximal Gastrectomy
- •Distal Gastrectomy
- •Total Gastrectomy
- •Reconstruction
- •Billroth I
- •Roux-en-Y
- •Double-Tract Reconstruction
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •16: Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy
- •Introduction
- •Operative Technique
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •17: Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Contraindications
- •Patient Preparation
- •Technique (Key Operative Steps)
- •Complications
- •Early Complications
- •Late Complications
- •References
- •18: DS/SADI
- •Introduction
- •Patient Preparation
- •Surgical Technique
- •Single Anastomosis DuodenoIleal Bypass
- •Sleeve Gastrectomy
- •Bowel Measurement
- •Duodenal Dissection
- •Duodenoileostomy
- •Bowel Measurement
- •Enteroenterostomy
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Part I: Revisional Foregut Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Operative Principles: Robotic Revisional Foregut Surgery
- •Presurgical Care: Optimization/Prehabilitation
- •Operating Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Access/Port Placement/Liver Retraction
- •Fundoplication Takedown
- •Crural Repair
- •Mesh Reinforcement
- •Antireflux Procedure
- •Outcomes
- •Part II: Revisional Bariatric Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Assessment
- •Setup
- •Access/Port Placement/Liver Retraction
- •Surgical Technique
- •Outcomes
- •References
- •20: Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Robotic TAPP
- •Instrumentation
- •Dissection
- •Mesh
- •Closure
- •Special Cases
- •Acute Presentation
- •Common Complications
- •Chronic Pain
- •Recurrence
- •Testicular Ischemia
- •Mesh Infection
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •R-TAPP
- •IPOM
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •22: Complex Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
- •Background
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Botox Injection
- •Patient Selection
- •Operative Procedure
- •Patient Positioning
- •Technique
- •Hybrid Robotic Ventral Hernia Repair
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •23: Robotic Cholecystectomy
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Robotic Dissection
- •Single-Port Robotic Cholecystectomy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Robotic Liver Resection
- •Patient Selection
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Standard Robotic Instruments
- •Right Hepatectomy (see Video 1)
- •Falciform Dissection
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •Left Hepatectomy
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Pringle Maneuver
- •Left Lateral Sectionectomy
- •Right Posterior Sectionectomy
- •Segment 7 Resection
- •Segment 8 Resection
- •Robotic Biliary Reconstruction
- •Choledochal Cyst
- •Bile Duct Injury
- •Roux-en-Y Hepaticojejunostomy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •25: Robotic-Assisted Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple)
- •Robotic Whipple
- •Patient Selection
- •Operative Steps
- •Supra-pancreatic/Hilar Dissection
- •Uncinate Dissection
- •Reconstruction Phase
- •Final Steps
- •Vascular Resections
- •Postoperative Care
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •26: Right Hemicolectomy
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Preparation
- •Patient Positioning
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Indications
- •Operation Steps
- •Left Hemicolectomy
- •Total Colectomy
- •Learning Curve
- •Future Directions
- •Suprapubic Approach
- •Single-Site Robotic Surgery
- •da Vinci SP® Surgical System
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •28: Low Anterior Resection
- •Background
- •Learning Curve
- •Training Program
- •Genitourinary Function
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Procedure
- •Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Technique
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •29: Robotic Lateral Transabdominal Adrenalectomy
- •Introduction
- •Pertinent Anatomy
- •Patient Positioning
- •Right Adrenalectomy
- •Port Placement
- •Technique
- •Left Adrenalectomy
- •Port Placement
- •Technique
- •Postoperative Care
- •Limitations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Operative Room Setup
- •Patient Position
- •Surgical Procedure
- •Step 1: Working Space
- •Step 3: Console Time
- •Discussion
- •References
- •31: Robotic Pulmonary Lobectomy
- •Current Evidence
- •Surgical Technique
- •Right-Sided Resections
- •Right Upper Lobectomy
- •Right Lower Lobectomy
- •Right Middle Lobectomy
- •Left-Sided Resections
- •Left Lower Lobectomy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •32: Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass
- •Operative Technique
- •Outcomes
- •Robotic-Assisted TECAB
- •Hybrid Coronary Revascularization (HCR)
- •Robotic-Assisted Mitral Valve Surgery
- •Patient Selection
- •Outcomes
- •Robotic Aortic Valve Replacement
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •33: Mediastinal Procedures
- •Introduction
- •Anterior Mediastinal Mass Example Case Scenario
- •Anterior Mediastinal Mass Excision Operative Steps
- •Middle Mediastinal Mass Example Case Scenario
- •Middle Mediastinal Cyst Excision Operative Steps
- •Posterior Mediastinal Mass Case Scenario
- •Patient Positioning
- •Posterior Mediastinal Mass Excision Operative Steps
- •Summary
- •References
- •34: Liver Transplantation
- •Introduction
- •Robotic Donor Hepatectomy
- •Patient Selection
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Instruments
- •Adjunct Robotic Instruments
- •Right Donor Hepatectomy
- •Falciform Dissection
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Demarcation
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •“Rubber Band” Retraction Technique
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •Closure
- •Left Donor Hepatectomy
- •Hilar Dissection
- •Demarcation
- •Parenchymal Transection
- •“Rubber Band” Retraction Technique
- •Parenchymal Transection

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 misring (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 (2–3cm distal to the pylorus). In patients with chronic
sleeve stulas, conversion to esophagojejunostomy must be considered
(Fig.19.17).

19 Revisional Foregut andBariatric 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 identied 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 1.5–2cm 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 andBariatric 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 insufating 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 insufcient weight loss or weight regain after
the primary procedure [28, 33–35]. 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 justied to delineate the anatomy of the index procedure. Even though robotics offers a good safety prole 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, etal. Clinical and economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery compared with medical management for gastrooesophageal reux 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, etal. 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 reux (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 andBariatric 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 Antireux 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
antireux 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-reux 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 antireux 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-reux 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, etal. Endoscopic appraisal of the gastroesophageal valve
after antireux 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 reux after antireux 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, etal. Laparoscopic revision of failed antireux
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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Obes Surg. 2018;28:1852.
36. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Azagury DE, etal. 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
SamuelGuba andRichardLu
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 18years 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% [3–5]. 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. Modiable 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 andPreparation
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
signicant 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 andDocking
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 15cm 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 8cm 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 efciency, 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 4cm 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 orice (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:
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
