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

28 Low Anterior Resection
Fig. 28.2 Initial
peritoneal incision and
dissection of the aortamesenteric window
395
Fig. 28.3 Demonstration
of the inferior mesenteric
plexus
(Fig.28.5). The dissection process continued along the embryological planes over
Gerota’s and Toldt’s fasciae (Fig.28.6), with careful preservation of the left ureter,
gonadal vessels, and autonomic nerves (Fig.28.7). During the medial dissection,
the superior hypogastric plexus, left ureter, and gonadal vessels were exposed and
deliberately preserved (Fig. 28.8). This approach ensures meticulous dissection
while safeguarding critical anatomical structures, contributing to the overall success
and safety of the procedure.
After completing the abdominal portion, attention was directed to the pelvis.
Initially, the peritoneal reection just below the sacral promontory was incised, and
the rectum was mobilized posteriorly through sharp dissection in the “holy plane”

396
Fig. 28.4 Dissection and ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery
C. Benlice and B. Baca
Fig. 28.5 Dissection and ligation of the inferior mesenteric vein

28 Low Anterior Resection
Fig. 28.6 Demonstration
of the Toldt’s line during
medial to lateral dissection
Fig. 28.7 Demonstration
of the left ureter and
gonadal vessels during
medial to lateral dissection
397
Fig. 28.8 Demonstration
of the superior hypogastric
plexus at the level of sacral
promontorium
(Fig.28.9). In a medial-to-lateral dissection, the right and left hypogastric nerves
were sequentially identied at the level of the pelvic brim (Fig.28.10). During the
initial medial dissection at the sacral promontory level, there exists a risk of injuring
the hypogastric nerves if working in the incorrect anatomical plane. The robot’s
magnication, stable traction, and vaporization from the monopolar scissors play

398
C. Benlice and B. Baca
Fig. 28.9 Demonstration of the holy plane and posterior wall dissection
Fig. 28.10 Demonstration of the right and left hypogastric nerve

28 Low Anterior Resection
Fig. 28.11 Demonstration
of the Waldeyer’s fascia
399
crucial roles in identifying the correct plane and minimizing such risks. Posterior
pelvic dissection is then performed along the fascia propria recti, exposing the holy
plane at the level of the sacral promontory, which encompasses the loose areolar
connective tissue between the rectal proper fascia and the prehypogastric nerve fascia (Fig.28.11).
Dissecting the posterior mesorectum rst provides the surgeon with better control over the mesorectum, facilitating subsequent lateral dissection. The right lateral
side of the mesorectum was then mobilized, followed by the mobilization of the left
side. Conducting posterior dissection all the way down to the pelvic oor and levator ani muscles is crucial for preventing injury to the inferior hypogastric plexus
during lateral dissection (Fig.28.11). Once adequate mobilization is achieved bilaterally, attention shifts to the anterior mesorectum. Anterior dissection commences
by incising the anterior peritoneal reection. The anterior dissection plane is
exposed, and the dissection proceeds posteriorly to the seminal vesicle or the vagina.
Stable traction with the third robotic arm facilitates more convenient and easier
anterior dissection. The magnied robotic view enhances the surgeon’s ability to
determine the correct surgical plane. This systematic approach ensures precise dissection and minimizes the risk of complications during the procedure. If the tumor
is located anteriorly, the dissection proceeds in front of Denonvilliers’ fascia. Nerve
bers from the pelvic plexus traverse underneath the seminal vesicles to reach the
bladder. In men, Denonvilliers’ fascia is identied at the level of the seminal vesicle,
located behind the seminal vesicles and in front of the rectum. Dissecting anterior
to Denonvilliers’ fascia poses a signicant risk of nerve injury (Fig. 28.12).
Conversely, if the tumor is posterior, the optimal dissection plane is posterior to
Denonvilliers’ fascia, ensuring a safe plane for nerve preservation. For continued
dissection, an avascular plane can be created between the mesorectum and the neurovascular bundles to prevent injury. Excessive traction of the seminal vesicle to

400
Fig. 28.12 Demonstration of the Denonvilliers’ fascia
Fig. 28.13 Demonstration
of the neurovascular
bundle of the Walsh
C. Benlice and B. Baca
establish the operative eld may result in nerve injury. Stable traction and the use of
multi-angled instruments contribute to effective and safer dissection. The neurovascular bundles travel through the 2 o’clock and 10 o’clock directions, extending
toward the genitalia (Fig.28.13). A U-shaped incision in the anterior rectum may be
employed to prevent nerve damage. The magnied robotic view enhances the clear
identication and tracking of neurovascular bundles compared to laparoscopy or

28 Low Anterior Resection
401
naked vision. Additionally, stable traction and countertraction help prevent excessive traction or avulsion damage to the nerves.
During posterior and lateral dissection, meticulous care is essential to preserve
both the right and left hypogastric nerves and the inferior hypogastric plexus,
respectively. The inferior hypogastric plexus is particularly susceptible to injury
during posterolateral and anterolateral mesorectal dissection. The mesorectal dissection is then continued down to the pelvic oor. Upon completing the full mobilization of the mesorectum, a digital rectal examination is performed by the assistant
surgeon to determine the appropriate level of rectal transection. A useful estimate of
the transection level is achieved by placing the tip of a nger in the anus with the
proximal interphalangeal joint at the level of the anal verge. The rectum is divided
using a robotic stapler(s) with a green cartridge introduced through the 12mm trocar. Once adequate mobilization is achieved, the rectum is transected with the
robotic stapler. Subsequently, end-to-end colorectal anastomosis is accomplished,
and a negative air leak test is conducted to ensure the integrity of the anastomosis.
Conclusion
The adoption of a fully robotic approach in pelvic rectal surgery aims to address
technical challenges, offering improved ergonomics and facilitating the intricate
task of preserving autonomic nerves within the conned space of the pelvis. By
eliminating technical difculties, which are a distinctive feature of the fully robotic
approach, not only does it streamline the surgical process, but it also enhances the
surgeon’s ability to navigate the complexities of pelvic anatomy with precision. The
superior ergonomics provided by robotic systems contribute to reducing physical
strain on the surgeon, enabling sustained focus and dexterity throughout the procedure. Additionally, the advanced capabilities of robotic technology empower surgeons to navigate and preserve autonomic nerves in the inherently narrow connes
of the pelvis, representing a signicant advancement in optimizing outcomes and
preserving functional aspects crucial for patient well-being. As surgical innovation
continues to advance, ongoing scientic exploration is anticipated to yield further
insights into the benets of such progress. Despite inherent limitations related to
cost and potential operative time, there is promise in robotic rectal surgery. There is
optimism that ongoing learning and renement in the eld will effectively address
these challenges.
State None.
Conicts of Interest and Source of Funding The authors have no conicts of interest including
relevant nancial interests, activities, relationships, and afliations.

402
C. Benlice and B. Baca
References
1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS.Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1:144.
2. De Jesus JP, Valadão M, de Castro Araujo RO, Cesar D, Linhares E, Iglesias AC.The circumferential resection margins status: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 2016;42(6):808–12.
3. Carlsen E, Schlichting E, Guldvog I, Johnson E, Heald RJ. Effect of the introduction of
total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1998; https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1365- 2168.1998.00601.x.
4. Emile SH, Horesh N, Freund MR, Garoufalia Z, Gefen R, Silva-Alvarenga E, etal. Trends in
the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of rectal adenocarcinoma in the US from 2004 to
2019: a national cancer database analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(3):355–64.
5. Bosio RM, Pigazzi A.Emerging and evolving technology in Colon and Rectal Surgery. Clin
Colon Rectal Surg. 2015;28(3):152–7.
6. Nezhat C, Vu M, Vang N, Chavali KS, Nezhat A.The journey from video laparoscopy to
robotic and digital surgery. In: Robotic surgery; 2021. p.3–10.
7. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, etal. Robotics
in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg.
2003;138(7):777–84.
8. Stevenson ARL, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, etal. Effect of
laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer:
the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1356–63.
9. Bilgin IA, Bas M, Aytac E, Benlice C, Esen E, Kirbiyik E, etal. Operative and long-term oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
Int J Med Robot Comput Assisted Surg. 2020;16(6):1–10.
10. Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS, Shin JW, Kim J.Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery
for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg. 2012;36:2722–9.
11. Katsuno H, Hanai T, Masumori K, Koide Y, Ashida K, Matsuoka H, etal. Robotic surgery
for rectal cancer: operative technique and review of the literature. J Anus Rectum Colon.
2020;4(1):14–24.
12. Huang YJ, Kang YN, Huang YM, Wu ATH, Wang W, Wei PL.Effects of laparoscopic vs
robotic-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an update systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(6):657–66.
13. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, etal. Effect of roboticassisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy
among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial.
JAMA. 2017;318(16):1569–80.
14. Kim MJ, Park SC, Park JW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Nam BH, etal. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):243–51.
15. Ackerman SJ, Daniel S, Baik R, Liu E, Mehendale S, Tackett S, etal. Comparison of complication and conversion rates between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal resection for
rectal cancer: which patients and providers could benet most from robotic-assisted surgery?
J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):254–61.
16. Zhang X, Wei Z, Bie M, Peng X, Chen C.Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery
for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5601–14.
17. D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, etal. Total
mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic
and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1887–95.
18. Baek JH, McKenzie S, Garcia-Aguilar J, Pigazzi A.Oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted
total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):882–6.
19. Sun Y, Xu H, Li Z, Han J, Song W, Wang J, etal. Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior
resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:1–8.

28 Low Anterior Resection
20. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Flynn J, Patil S, Widmar M, Quezada-Diaz F, Lynn P, et al.
Comparing outcomes of robotic versus open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. BJS Open.
2021;5(6):zrab135.
21. Lim S, Nagai Y, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Sasaki K, Murono K, et al. Surgical outcomes of
robotic, laparoscopic, and open low anterior resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy
for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. Surg Today. 2023;53(1):109–15.
22. Yao Q, Sun QN, Ren J, Wang LH, Wang DR.Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid–low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(16):15207–17.
23. Wee IJY, Kuo L, Ngu JC.Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Int J Med
Robot Comput Assisted Surg. 2021;17(1):1–8.
24. Gavriilidis P, Wheeler J, Spinelli A, de Angelis N, Simopoulos C, Di Saverio S.Robotic vs
laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A
systematic review by updated meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2020;22(11):1506–17.
25. Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T, Tang B, Jia B, Zhou Y, etal. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for
middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(11):991–1004.
26. Hoshino N, Sakamoto T, Hida K, Sakai Y. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal
cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence. Surg
Today. 2019;49:556–70.
27. Kim JC, Yu CS, Lim SB, Park IJ, Kim CW, Yoon YS.Comparative analysis focusing on
surgical and early oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopy-assisted, and robot-assisted
approaches in rectal cancer patients. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31:1179–87.
28. Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, et al. Effect of
laparoscopic- assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic
outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(13):1346–55.
29. Oshio H, Konta T, Oshima Y, Yunome G, Okazaki S, Kawamura I, etal. Learning curve of
robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experience. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2023;408(1):89.
30. Jiménez-Rodríguez RM, Rubio-Dorado-Manzanares M, Díaz-Pavón JM, Reyes-Díaz ML,
Vazquez-Monchul JM, Garcia-Cabrera AM, etal. Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31:1807–15.
31. Aghayeva A, Baca B.Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: a learning curve analysis.
Int J Med Robot Comput Assisted Surg. 2020;16(4):e2112.
32. Burghgraef TA, Sikkenk DJ, Verheijen PM, El Moumni M, Hompes R, Consten ECJ.The
learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(9):6337–60.
33. Park EJ, Kim CW, Cho MS, Kim DW, Min BS, Baik SH, etal. Is the learning curve of robotic
low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer?: a
comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries. Medicine. 2014;93(25):e109.
34. Foo CC, Law WL.The learning curve of robotic-assisted low rectal resection of a novice rectal
surgeon. World J Surg. 2016;40:456–62.
35. Kolehmainen CSJ, Ukkonen MT, Tomminen T, Helavirta IM, Laukkarinen JM, Hyöty M, etal.
Short learning curve in transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a
prospective study from a Finnish Tertiary Referral Centre. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(5):2361–7.
36. Zaepfel S, Marcovei R, Fernandez-de-Sevilla E, Sourrouille I, Honore C, Gelli M, etal.
Robotic-assisted surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a long but safe learning curve. J Robot
Surg. 2023;17:1–10.
37. Panteleimonitis S, Popeskou S, Aradaib M, Harper M, Ahmed J, Ahmad M, et al.
Implementation of robotic rectal surgery training programme: importance of standardisation
and structured training. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2018;403:749–60.
403

404
38. Younes MM, Larkins K, To G, Burke G, Heriot A, Warrier S, etal. What are clinically relevant
performance metrics in robotic surgery? A systematic review of the literature. J Robot Surg.
2023;17(2):335–50.
39. Shu D, Cai Z, Yin X, Zheng M, Li J, Yang X, etal. Structured training curricula for robotic
colorectal surgery in China: does laparoscopic experience affect training effects? J Gastrointest
Oncol. 2023;14(1):198.
40. Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, etal. Impact of robotic
surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):672–8.
41. Liu Y, Liu M, Lei Y, Zhang H, Xie J, Zhu S, etal. Evaluation of effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgical technology on genitourinary function after total mesorectal excision for rectal
cancer. Int J Surg. 2022;104:106800.
42. Panteleimonitis S, Ahmed J, Harper M, Parvaiz A.Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery. World J
Gastrointest Surg. 2016;8(11):744.
43. Luca F, Craigg DK, Senthil M, Selleck MJ, Babcock BD, Reeves ME, etal. Sexual and urinary
outcomes in robotic rectal surgery: review of the literature and technical considerations. Updat
Surg. 2018;70:415–21.
C. Benlice and B. Baca
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
