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

27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
375
been associated with faster gastrointestinal recovery, shorter hospital stays, and
lower postoperative hernia rates [33]. Although the long-term oncological benets
remain a subject of ongoing research, these short-term advantages highlight the
potential of robotic left hemicolectomy.
Total Colectomy
The technique for total abdominal colectomy incorporates the combination of right
hemicolectomy into the previously described left hemicolectomy procedure. The
process involves sequential division of branches originating from the superior mesenteric artery, commencing with the ileocecal and right colic vessels, followed by
the middle colic vessels. The IMA can be divided at its origin, or the superior rectal
artery can be preserved depending on the nature of the operative indication.
Multiple quadrant access is usually necessary for this intricate procedure. For
this purpose, the most commonly preferred approach for the patient cart is from the
right or left side of the operating table. Rotation of the boom from right to left
enables precise maneuvering of both sides of the abdomen (Fig.27.7a). The surgeon
initially gains access to the right side, followed by access to the left side, which is
achieved by turning the boom where the arms are anchored. Alternatively, the
patient’s cart can be placed between the patient’s legs (Fig.27.7b), associated with
a similar operative time [10]. A meticulous approach to docking is imperative,
necessitating the accurate alignment of the patient cart and robotic arms. In total
colectomy, the surgeon initiates the procedure by accessing the abdominal cavity
using established techniques such as the Hasson technique, VisiPort™ Trocars
(Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), or a Veress needle. This entry point allows a
comprehensive examination of the abdominal anatomy, focusing on critical structures such as the ileocolic artery and duodenum. Pre-docking intra-abdominal
inspection is recommended to reveal anatomical details and avoid platformpositioning complications. Port placement, a critical consideration, involves strategic positioning of trocars to ensure effective access to all four quadrants of the
abdomen. The typical conguration includes a 12mm robotic port in the right iliac
fossa; 8mm robotic ports in the umbilical region, left iliac fossa, and right and left
upper quadrants; and 5mm assistant ports in the right and left anks (Fig.27.8).
Alternative port placements and patient cart positions can be considered based on
the procedure and the surgeon’s preferences. As the authors of this chapter, we do
not prefer a robotic approach for total colectomy. Consequently, we do not advocate
a specic preferred patient cart position or port placement technique.
After port placement and docking, the operation starts with isolation and division
of the ileocolic artery, with careful dissection to prevent harm to the duodenum and
the right ureter. Mobilization of the right colon and hepatic exure ensues with
medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial dissections performed sequentially to facilitate smooth and safe mobilization. Next, the middle colic pedicle is tackled, skeletonized, and ligated. Subsequently, the robotic system is docked using a multidocking
approach to focus on the distal transverse colon and splenic exure. Final docking

376
a
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
Fig. 27.7 Room setup during total colectomy. (a) Lateral patient cart docking. (b) Docking
between the legs

27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
b
377
Fig. 27.7 (continued)
enables the dissection of the descending and rectosigmoid colon. The rectosigmoid
junction is divided by using a robotic stapler mounted on arm #1 and docked in the
right lower quadrant. The specimen is extracted through a Pfannenstiel incision, and
the small bowel is transected. An anvil is placed at the proximal transection point.
Ileorectal anastomosis is performed under direct visualization, using a circular stapler inserted through the anus. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is used to assess the integrity
and level of anastomosis.

378
Fig. 27.8 Port placement
for total colectomy
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
New-generation robotic platforms represent a notable advancement over
previous- generation platforms and are associated with comparable operative times
for total abdominal colectomy [10]. Utilizing the boom system and motionactivating table with newer-generation robotic platforms has proven advantageous
in seamlessly performing anatomical dissection during total colectomy [32].
Additionally, robotic total colectomy offers a lower conversion rate and more number of harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic methods [32, 34]. It is worth noting
that despite its advantages in terms of dissection, there are nancial considerations
associated with robotic surgery. The total hospital charges are signicantly higher in
robotic surgery than the laparoscopic approach [35].
Postoperative Care andComplication Management
Patients undergoing robotic colectomy typically recover seamlessly especially with
the addition of enhanced recovery pathways [36]. Early ambulation is encouraged on
the day of the surgery or next morning after surgery [7]. Minimizing postoperative

27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
379
intravenous uids and advocating limited use of narcotics are highly recommended
to reduce postoperative ileus [37]. Starting from the day of the surgery, all patients
are placed on a liquid diet, progressing to regular diet as tolerated. Administration of
IV antibiotics is limited only for perioperative use, and urinary catheter removal
occurs on postoperative day number one to mitigate potential urinary tract infections
and promote early mobilization [38]. Stoma care and education are prerequisites for
patients undergoing ileostomy before discharge to their homes. Patients undergoing
colorectal surgery benet from an enhanced recovery pathway, demonstrating a
decreased length of hospital stay and cost without increased complications [39].
A systematic review comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted colectomies
includes randomized and nonrandomized studies, indicating a lower morbidity in
robotic surgery. However, it is noteworthy that extended operative times and increased
costs may counterbalance this advantage compared to laparoscopic approach [40]. It
is crucial to emphasize that these ndings are not reproduced in randomized controlled trials, as there are limited randomized controlled studies evaluating robotic
colectomies. According to the ROLLAR Study, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not signicantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy compared
to conventional laparoscopic surgery [41]. It’s important to note that our chapter
differs from the ROLLAR Study, which focuses on rectal cancer patients.
Postoperative symptomatic impediments following total abdominal colectomy
often manifest as chronic diarrhea, fecal urgency, and accidental bowel leakage
[42]. The use of bulking agents, such as ber supplements, and antidiarrheal agents,
such as loperamide and diphenoxylate/atropine, is benecial after excluding infectious, inammatory, and dietary causes [42]. Cholestyramine is particularly effective for patients with a history of cholecystectomy. Endoscopic assessment of the
rectum is imperative after total colectomy for inammatory bowel disease and polyposis syndromes, which dictates the necessity for completion proctectomy, either
with end ileostomy or ileal pouch anastomosis [42]. The risk of rectal neoplasia in
patients with polyposis syndrome after ileorectal anastomosis is a signicant concern, necessitating frequent endoscopic surveillance with biopsies and a multidisciplinary discussion and approach.
Learning Curve
Publications on the learning curve usually concentrate on robotic proctectomy rather
than on robotic colonic resection procedures. However, several comprehensive
robotic colorectal learning curve studies have included both left hemicolectomy and
total colectomy. The robotic colorectal surgery learning curve has three stages [43,
44]. Various studies have reported different numbers of cases in the initial phase of
the learning curve. Typically, this phase spans between 27 and 45 cases, with certain
studies assuming that practitioners have prior experience in laparoscopic colorectal
surgery [45–48]. The learning curve has the potential to be expedited through the use
of simulators and video-based education [49, 50]. The rapid adoption of robotic
colorectal resections has led to a signicant proportion of procedures being

380
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
performed by surgeons in their initial phases. However, during this phase, they
exhibit a higher incidence of iatrogenic complications [51]. Upon completing the
initial phase, surgeons proceed to the competent and challenging phase, performing
more intricate and demanding procedures [43]. After completing the learning, robotassisted surgery can be effectively performed within diverse colorectal practices,
demonstrating minimal conversion rates and postoperative complications [47].
Whether robotic surgery has shorter learning curve than laparoscopic colorectal
surgery remains controversial. Various reports suggest that robotic technology
shortens the learning curve for complex tasks compared to conventional laparoscopy [52]. Conversely, another study contended that the learning curves for both
robotic and laparoscopic approaches were similar [44]. Nevertheless, additional
research is required to further shed light to this topic and clarify the debated points
regarding differences between robotic and laparoscopic colon resection.
Future Directions
Suprapubic Approach
The suprapubic surgical approach involves colonic resection with horizontally and
linearly placed ports in the suprapubic region and is primarily utilized for robotic
right hemicolectomy procedures. The trocars are placed horizontally below the line
between the anterior superior iliac spines, with a 12mm trocar on the left and three
trocars of 8mm spaced 4cm apart (Fig.27.9). Investigation of the optimization of
the suprapubic method is clinically signicant. Suprapubic incision is known to
Fig. 27.9 Suprapubic
approach port placement

27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
381
provide better cosmesis, less pain, and a lower risk of incisional hernia than midline
incision. A streamlined surgical approach can enhance the operational efciency
and minimize collisions across the robotic arms.
A few studies have described a suprapubic approach for robotic total colectomy
[53]. The patient cart is strategically positioned between the patient’s legs, initially
targeting the mesentery and the upper abdominal region. Subsequently, the instruments and camera are reoriented to focus on the pelvic region. The surgical procedure commences in the upper rectal region by dissecting the rectosigmoid
mesocolon. The sigmoid and left colon are mobilized, and the dissection is advanced
toward the splenic exure. However, due to the substantial distance of the splenic
exure from the suprapubic access point, rst mobilization of the transverse colon
is performed to facilitate takedown of the exure. Subsequently, splenic exure
mobilization is performed. Ultimately, the nal stages of dissection involve mobilization of the right colon in order to achieve tension-free anastomosis using the
ileum. It is noteworthy that the procedure can hypothetically be performed also for
the left colon resection up to the transverse colon; however, there are limited studies
addressing this aspect in the existing literature. Yeo etal. tested the feasibility of a
suprapubic approach for robotic left hemicolectomy in cadaveric models and
adapted it for the rst clinical case [54].
A comparison between the suprapubic approach and traditional port placement
revealed the advantages of the suprapubic approach, including reduced operation
time, lower conversion rates, decreased complications, and shorter hospital stay [55,
56]. Other studies have proposed a suprapubic approach for robotic colectomy, inte-
grating complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy, demonstrating
potential feasibility [57, 58]. Some case reports have demonstrated the feasibility
and efciency of the suprapubic approach using the da Vinci Single-Port (SP®) system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) [59].
The collective ndings suggest optimism for the future application of the suprapubic surgical approach, pending further clarication of the application conditions
and long-term efcacy.
Single-Site Robotic Surgery
As engineering and technology continue to advance, enhancements in surgical
robots are aimed at overcoming the challenges encountered in traditional approaches.
Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to mitigate port-related
trauma and complications. However, technical challenges, particularly in complex
operations requiring delicate tissue manipulation, have impeded the progress of
SILS.Robotic surgery, characterized by increased articulation and reduced risk of
instrument collision, presents a solution to these limitations [60]. Surgeons strive to
minimize the number of robotic ports used in colonic resections to enhance cosmetic outcomes and expedite recovery. The integration of both surgical concepts
holds the potential to achieve a relatively “scarless” operation with improved surgical dynamics.

382
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
Single-site robotic surgery for total colectomy has been introduced in case
reports, demonstrating its feasibility with comparable operative times [61]. The procedure is also safe and feasible for left-sided colectomies and exhibits surgical and
pathological outcomes similar to those of the laparoscopy [62]. Bae etal. introduced
23 cases of single-site robotic left colectomy with an additional assistant port, conrming the feasibility and safety of this method [63]. A systematic review indicated
that current studies support the safety and feasibility of single-port robotic colectomy, although the evidence is limited [64]. Concerns persist regarding whether
surgeons can achieve surgical and oncological outcomes comparable to those of
conventional multiport laparoscopic and robotic colonic resection. Challenges
include limited mobilization and countertraction due to the single-site entrance, as
well as the constrained range of motion of the robotic arms hindering multiquadrant
abdominal surgery. Issues such as docking and repositioning of the robot, particularly in extended colectomies, limit the utility of robotic surgery. Despite advancements in single-access ports, robotic arm congurations, and surgical platforms for
single-port robotic surgery in the colorectal eld, signicant improvements are still
required such as the need for vessel sealing robotic tools and stapling [63, 64]. The
development of novel robotic platforms specically designed for single-site surgery
is essential to overcome the current limitations, and these efforts signify the potential of robotic surgery to overcome the limitations of conventional approaches.
da Vinci SP® Surgical System
The da Vinci SP® surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is specically designed for single-port surgery. It features a singular arm comprising a shaft
with three multijointed, fully articulated instruments and a jointed high- resolution
camera. The system is specically designed to operate in narrow, hard-to- reach areas,
such as anorectal surgery, prostatectomy, and tonsillectomy, and is characterized by a
360-degree boom movement that facilitates full multiquadrant operations in colorectal surgery [27]. The shaft design, which consists of all the instruments, prevents
robotic arm collisions during surgery. However, limitations include the inability to use
surgical energy devices and robotic staplers as well as the absence of suction irrigation. Furthermore, the grasping and traction forces are comparatively weaker than
those in previous models, constraining their use in major surgeries [65].
Pioneering studies have conrmed the feasibility and efciency of da Vinci SP®
(dVSP) in colorectal surgery [66, 67]. Another study, comprising 43 robotic dVSP
cases, incorporated six left hemicolectomies, demonstrating comparable short-term
outcomes to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery [68]. The overall efciency and functionality of the dVSP for robotic colorectal procedures suggests a
promising future for the widespread adoption of this technique. The growing interest in dVSP in colorectal surgery underscores its potential use in abdominal procedures and possibly other endoluminal approaches. However, a comprehensive
analysis of procedural outcomes and further technological improvements is imperative to properly advance the eld.

27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
383
Conclusion
A meticulous decision-making process based on the surgeon’s experience considering patient-specic conditions is paramount, achieving optimal outcomes in colonic
interventions.
Advances in preoperative planning and meticulous room setup have enhanced
the success of these procedures. A comprehensive examination of the operative
steps is essential for successful execution of robotic surgery. The efcacy of robotic
platforms, particularly for left hemicolectomy, is underscored by their potential
short-term advantages. Technological advancements are poised to augment the signicance of robotic surgery in colonic intervention.
References
1. Sheetz KH, Clain J, Dimick JB.Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911.
2. Benlice C, Aytac E, Costedio M, Kessler H, Abbas MA, Remzi FH, etal. Robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy: a case-matched comparison from the ACS-NSQIP.Int J Med
Robot. 2017;13(3) https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1783.
3. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC.Robotic surgery: a current perspective.
Ann Surg. 2004;239(1):14–21.
4. Uhrich ML, Underwood RA, Standeven JW, Soper NJ, Engsberg JR.Assessment of fatigue,
monitor placement, and surgical experience during simulated laparoscopic surgery. Surg
Endosc. 2002;16(4):635–9.
5. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, etal. Efcacy of the Da Vinci
surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254–62.
6. Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Dimick JB, Regenbogen SE.Perioperative outcomes and trends in
the use of robotic colectomy for medicare beneciaries from 2010 through 2016. JAMA Surg.
2020;155(1):41–9.
7. Quezada-Diaz F, Pappou EP.Robotic left colectomy. In: Kim J, Garcia-Aguilar J, editors.
Minimally invasive surgical techniques for cancers of the gastrointestinal tract: a step-by-step
approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p.193–200.
8. Rouffet F, Hay JM, Vacher B, Fingerhut A, Elhadad A, Flamant Y, et al. Curative resection for left colonic carcinoma: hemicolectomy vs. segmental colectomy. A prospective,
controlled, multicenter trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Dis Colon Rectum.
1994;37(7):651–9.
9. Lee BC, Yu CS, Kim J, Lee JL, Kim CW, Yoon YS, etal. Clinicopathological features and
surgical options for synchronous colorectal cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(9):e6224.
10. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Quezada-Diaz F, Tchack M, Pappou E, Wei IH, Smith JJ, etal. Use
of the Xi robotic platform for total abdominal colectomy: a step forward in minimally invasive
colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(3):966–71.
11. Shussman N, Wexner SD.Colorectal polyps and polyposis syndromes. Gastroenterol Rep
(Oxford). 2014;2(1):1–15.
12. Schlussel AT, Gagliano RA Jr, Seto-Donlon S, Eggerding F, Donlon T, Berenberg J, etal.
The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 2: clinical implications and applications. J
Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(5):336–44.
13. Zimmern A, Prasad L, Desouza A, Marecik S, Park J, Abcarian H.Robotic colon and rectal
surgery: a series of 131 cases. World J Surg. 2010;34(8):1954–8.

384
14. Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW.Comparison of robotically performed and
traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(12):1633–9.
15. Kilcoyne A, Kaplan JL, Gee MS.Inammatory bowel disease imaging: current practice and
future directions. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(3):917–32.
16. Al-Jashaami LS, DuPont HL.Management of clostridium difcile infection. Gastroenterol
Hepatol (N Y). 2016;12(10):609–16.
17. Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM. Learning curve for
robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):855–60.
18. Beck DE.Evaluation and management of constipation. Ochsner J. 2008;8(1):25–31.
19. Gorgun E, Ozben V, Costedio M, Stocchi L, Kalady M, Remzi F.Robotic versus conventional
laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients. Color Dis. 2016;18(11):1063–71.
20. Gorgun E, Rencuzogullari A, Ozben V, Stocchi L, Fraser T, Benlice C, etal. An effective
bundled approach reduces surgical site infections in a high-outlier colorectal unit. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2018;61(1):89–98.
21. Palmeri M, Gianardi D, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Bastiani L, Furbetta N, etal. Robotic
colorectal resection with and without the use of the new Da Vinci table motion: a case-matched
study. Surg Innov. 2018;25(3):251–7.
22. Parra-Davila E, Diaz-Hernandez JJ. Totally robotic left colectomy. J Robot Surg.
2011;5(1):57–64.
23. ErÖZkan K, Vatansever S, Tamam S, Benk MŞ, Azili C, Bayar S, etal. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: comparison of medial and lateral approach. Ege Tıp Dergisi. 2023;62(3):339–45.
24. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Navid A, Sarma DR, Eltair M, Mankotia R, etal. Meta-analysis
of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic
colorectal surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2019;34(5):787–99.
25. Ozben V, Cengiz TB, Atasoy D, Bayraktar O, Aghayeva A, Erguner I, etal. Is da Vinci Xi
Better than da Vinci Si in robotic rectal cancer surgery? Comparison of the 2 generations of da
Vinci systems. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(5):417–23.
26. Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R.Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs
Si comparison. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):67–74.
27. Erozkan K, Gorgun E. Robotic colorectal surgery and future directions. Am J Surg.
2023;230:91.
28. Achilli P, Perry W, Grass F, Abd El Aziz MA, Kelley SR, Larson DW, etal. Completely intracorporeal anastomosis in robotic left colonic and rectal surgery: technique and 30-day outcomes. Updat Surg. 2021;73(6):2137–43.
29. Alharthi S, Reilly M, Arishi A, Ahmed AM, Chulkov M, Qu W, etal. Robotic versus laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy: Analysis of healthcare cost and utilization project database. Am
Surg. 2020;86(3):256–60.
30. Bastawrous AL, Landmann RG, Liu Y, Liu E, Cleary RK.Incidence, associated risk factors,
and impact of conversion to laparotomy in elective minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for
diverticular disease. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):598–609.
31. Grass F, Crippa J, Mathis KL, Kelley SR, Larson DW.Feasibility and safety of robotic resection of complicated diverticular disease. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(12):4171–6.
32. Kim JC, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Kim CW, Park IJ, Lim SB.Robotic left colectomy with complete
mesocolectomy for splenic exure and descending colon cancer, compared with a laparoscopic procedure. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(5):e1918.
33. Al Natour RH, Obias V, Albright J, Wu J, Ferraro J, Akram WM, etal. A propensity score
matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy in an enhanced recovery pathway. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(5):649–56.
34. Ozben V, de Muijnck C, Karabork M, Ozoran E, Zenger S, Bilgin IA, etal. The da Vinci
Xi system for robotic total/subtotal colectomy vs. conventional laparoscopy: short-term outcomes. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(9):861–8.
35. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hanna MH, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills
S.Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy.
Surg Endosc. 2016;30(7):2792–8.
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
