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_874_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Ancient Past
- •1.3 Modern Period
- •1.4 Robot
- •1.5 Contemporary Period
- •1.6 Healthcare Robotics
- •1.9 Robotic-Assisted Surgery Logistics
- •1.10 Future Directions
- •1.7 Twenty-First Century
- •1.8 Hernia Repair
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Advantages
- •2.3 Disadvantages/Barriers
- •2.4 Training Requirements
- •2.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •3: Enhanced Recovery After Hernia Repair
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Pre-Operative Measurements
- •3.2.1 Smoking Cessation
- •3.2.2 Weight Loss
- •3.2.3 Diabetes Optimization
- •3.2.4 Nutritional Optimization
- •3.2.5 Prehabilitation
- •3.3 Intra-operative Measures
- •3.3.2 Perioperative Antibiotics
- •3.3.3 Surgical-Site Infections (SSI)
- •3.3.4 Improving Postoperative Intestinal Function
- •3.4 Post-operative Measures
- •3.4.2 Multimodal Pain Control
- •3.4.3 Early Enteral Feeding
- •3.5 Discussion
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.3 Prosthetic Materials: History
- •4.4 Absorbable Synthetic Biomaterials
- •4.5 Biologic Products
- •4.5.1 Bovine Products
- •4.5.2 Cadaveric Products
- •4.5.3 Porcine Products
- •4.6 Hybrid Products
- •4.7 Flat Prosthetic Products
- •4.8 Miscellaneous Flat Products
- •4.9 Combination Flat Synthetic Prosthetics
- •4.14 Hiatal Hernia Repair Products
- •4.15 Fixation Devices
- •4.16 Conclusion
- •References
- •5.1 Inguinal Hernia
- •5.1.2 Inguinal Preoperative Imaging
- •5.1.3 Operative Approach
- •5.1.4 Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repairs
- •5.1.5 Bilateral Hernias
- •5.1.6 Obesity
- •5.1.7 Anticoagulated Patients
- •5.1.8 Medical Comorbidities
- •5.1.9 Women
- •5.1.10 Femoral Hernias
- •5.1.11 Preperitoneal Mesh/Lower Midline Surgery
- •5.1.12 Scrotal/Nonreducible Hernia
- •5.1.13 Summary
- •5.1.14 Ventral/Incisional Hernia
- •5.1.16 Preoperative Imaging
- •5.1.17 Prehabilitation
- •5.1.18 Operative Approach
- •5.1.19 Mesh Utilization
- •5.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •6.1 Background
- •6.2 Pain Classification
- •6.3 Anatomic Considerations
- •6.7 Chronic Pain After Ventral Hernia Repair
- •6.8 Chronic Pain After Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •6.10 Open Extended Triple Neurectomy
- •6.11 Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Triple Neurectomy
- •6.12 Chronic Orchialgia
- •6.14 Conclusion
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.3 The Robotic Equipment
- •7.4.1 Patient Positioning
- •7.4.2 Cannulas
- •7.4.3 Robot Docking
- •7.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.6 Controversies
- •8.6.1 Direct Hernia Defect Closure
- •8.6.2 Mesh Fixation
- •8.6.3 Non-Mesh Robotic TAPP Repairs
- •8.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •8: Routine Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Patient Selection
- •8.3 Surgical Technique
- •8.3.2 Dissection
- •8.3.3 Mesh Placement
- •8.3.4 Peritoneal Closure
- •8.4 Recovery
- •8.5 Adverse Events
- •8.5.1 Small Bowel Obstruction
- •8.5.2 Recurrence
- •8.5.3 Chronic Pain
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 History
- •9.3 Pre-operative Preparation
- •9.4 Operative Techniques
- •9.6 Summary
- •References
- •10: Pelvic Hernias
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Technique
- •10.5 Docking
- •10.6 Surgical Technique
- •10.7 Dissection/Adhesiolysis
- •10.8 Defect Closure
- •10.10 Complications
- •10.12 Summary
- •10.13 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •Glossary
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.4 Other
- •11.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •12: Re-operation After Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.6.1 Open Repair
- •12.6.2 Laparoscopic Repair
- •12.6.3 Robotic Repair
- •12.7 Special Considerations
- •12.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •13: Botulinum Toxin Aided Hernia Repair
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Existing Clinical Applications
- •13.5.1 Anatomy
- •13.5.2 Our Technique
- •13.6.4 Other Uses
- •13.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •14: Pneumoperitoneum Aided Hernia Repair
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.1.1 Preoperation Treatment Options
- •14.2 Progressive Preoperative Pneumoperitoneum (PPP)
- •14.2.4 PPP Protocol
- •14.3 Surgical Repair: Minimally Invasive
- •14.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Patient Selection
- •15.5 Port Placement
- •15.6 Intraoperative Considerations
- •15.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •16.2 Operative Technique
- •16.2.2 Access
- •16.2.3 Port Placement
- •16.2.5 Upper Midline Defects (Lower Dock Setup)
- •16.2.6 Lower Midline Defects (Upper Dock Setup)
- •16.2.7 Side Dock Setup
- •16.2.8 Conclusion
- •17: Robotic IPOM-Plus Repair
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 Definition
- •17.3 Surgical Technique
- •17.3.1 Preoperative Care
- •17.3.2 Patient Positioning
- •17.3.3 Trocar Placement
- •17.3.4 Docking
- •17.3.5 Instrumentation
- •17.3.6 Adhesiolysis
- •17.4 Postoperative Care
- •17.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •18: Transabdominal Preperitoneal (rTAPP) Repair
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Surgical Anatomy
- •18.4 Patient Selection
- •18.5 Preoperative Evaluation
- •18.6 Equipment
- •18.7 Surgical Technique
- •18.7.2 Trocar Placement, Adhesiolysis, Preperitoneal Dissection
- •18.8 Postoperative Care
- •18.9 Complications
- •18.9.1 Bleeding-Hematoma
- •18.9.2 Seroma
- •18.9.3 Intestinal Injury
- •18.9.4 Chronic Pain
- •18.9.5 Recurrence
- •18.10 Limitations
- •18.11 Conclusion
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Background
- •19.3 History
- •19.4 Pre-Operative Workup
- •19.6 Surgical Technique
- •19.6.1 Access
- •19.6.2 Port Placement
- •19.6.3 Dissection/Adhesiolysis
- •19.6.5 Midline Reconstruction
- •19.7 Complications
- •19.9 Discussion
- •19.10 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •Glossary
- •20: Endoscopic Component Separation Techniques
- •20.1 Endoscopic Component Separation Techniques
- •20.4 Operative Steps
- •20.4.1 Preoperative Preparation
- •20.5 Operative Technique
- •20.5.1 Transfascial Approach
- •20.5.2 Modified Subfascial Approach
- •20.5.3 Endoscopic Subcutaneous CS Approach
- •20.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •21: Robotic Retro-Rectus Repairs
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Robotic Rives: Retromuscular Repairs
- •21.2.1 Patient Selection
- •21.2.2 General Measures
- •21.2.3 Single Docking: Cranial Approach
- •21.2.4 Double Docking: Lateral Approach
- •21.2.5 Single Docking: Lateral Approach
- •21.3 e-TEP
- •21.3.3 Upper Midline Defect
- •21.3.4 Lower Midline Defects
- •21.3.5 Side-Docking
- •21.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •22: Robotic Transversus Abdominus Release
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.2 Historical Context
- •22.2.3 The Rives-Stoppa Repair
- •22.2.4 Posterior Component Separation
- •22.2.6 Minimally Invasive Approaches
- •22.2.7 Operative Considerations
- •22.2.8 Patient Selection
- •22.3 Pre-Operative Planning
- •22.4 Technique
- •22.4.3 Trocar Placement
- •22.4.4 Docking
- •22.4.5 Retromuscular Dissection
- •22.4.6 Transversus Abdominis Release
- •22.4.8 Contralateral Dissection
- •22.4.9 Fascial Closure
- •22.4.11 Post-Operative Care
- •22.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Operating Room Set Up
- •23.3 Surgical Technique
- •23.4 Postoperative Care
- •23.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •24: Lumbar Hernia
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.1.1 Historical Background
- •24.1.2 Classifications
- •24.1.3 Surgical Anatomy
- •24.1.4 Pathogenesis
- •24.1.5 Clinical Presentation
- •24.2 Preoperative Planning
- •24.3 Operative Technique
- •24.3.1 Open Approach
- •24.3.2 Mimimally Invasive Approach
- •24.3.2.1 Conventional Laparoscopy
- •24.3.2.2 Robotic Assisted
- •24.3.3 Hybrid Approach
- •24.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •25.1 Background
- •25.3 Preoperative Considerations
- •25.4 Operating Room Set Up
- •25.5.2 Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR)
- •25.5.4 Mesh Placement
- •25.6 Postoperative Management of Modified Sugarbaker with TAR
- •25.7 Complications
- •25.8 Traditional Sugarbaker Repair
- •25.8.1 Operating Room Set Up
- •25.9 Postoperative Management
- •25.10 Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •27.2 Obesity
- •27.3 Malnutrition
- •27.4 Immunosuppression
- •27.5 Age
- •27.6 Special Considerations: Cytoreductive Surgery
- •27.7 Future Thoughts
- •References
- •28.1 Morgagni Hernia
- •28.1.1 Si
- •28.1.2 Xi
- •28.2 Bochdalek Hernia
- •28.2.1 Si
- •28.2.2 Xi
- •28.3 Traumatic Diaphragmatic Hernia
- •28.4 Summary
- •References
- •29: Robotic Assisted Morgagni Hernia Repair
- •29.1 Introduction
- •29.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •29.3 Patient Selection
- •29.6 Intraoperative Considerations
- •29.7 Recommended Instruments
- •29.8 Postoperative Care
- •29.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •30: Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair
- •30.1 Introduction
- •30.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •30.2.1 Upper Endoscopy
- •30.2.2 Barium Swallow
- •30.2.3 High Resolution Esophageal Manometry
- •30.2.4 pH Monitoring
- •30.3 Operative Technique
- •30.3.1 Operating Room (OR) Setup
- •30.3.2 Patient Positioning
- •30.3.3 Trocar Placement
- •30.3.4 Docking
- •30.3.5 Visualization
- •30.3.7 Esophageal Lengthening
- •30.3.8 Crural Closure
- •30.3.9 Relaxing Incisions
- •30.3.10 Fundoplication
- •30.3.11 Mesh Reinforcement
- •30.4 Peri-Operative Complications
- •30.4.1 Pneumothorax
- •30.4.2 Vagal Injury
- •30.4.3 Esophageal Perforation
- •30.4.4 Gastric Perforation
- •30.4.5 Bleeding
- •30.4.6 Dysphagia
- •30.4.7 Reflux
- •30.5 Outcomes
- •30.6 Reoperative Considerations
- •30.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •31.1 Introduction
- •31.2 Surgical Indications
- •31.3 Preoperative Evaluation
- •31.4 Surgical Technique
- •31.5 Postoperative Care
- •31.6 Outcomes
- •31.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •32.4 Organ Perforation
- •32.6 Postoperative In-hospital Complications
- •32.7 Late Complications
- •32.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •33: Reoperation After Robotic Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.6 Open Repair
- •33.7 Laparoscopic Repair
- •33.8 Robotic Repair
- •33.9 Conclusions
- •References
- •Index

86
Fig. 4.50 Parietex
monolament macroporous
(All rights reserved; used
with permission of
Medtronic, Inc.)
Fig. 4.51 SM2
K. A. LeBlanc
Fig. 4.52 SM3

4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
Fig. 4.53 Versatex (All
rights reserved; used with
permission of Medtronic,
Inc.)
87
Table 4.13 ePTFE products
Fig. 4.54 DualMesh
DualMesh, W.L. Gore & Associates, Elkhart, DE, USA
DualMesh Plus, W.L. Gore &Associates, Elkhart, DE, USA
DualMesh Plus with Holes, W.L. Gore &Associates, Elkhart,
DE, USA
Dulex, Davol, Inc., Warwick, RI, USA
MycroMesh, W.L. Gore &Associates, Elkhart, DE, USA
MycroMesh Plus, W.L. Gore &Associates, Elkhart, DE, USA
Soft Tissue Patch, W.L. Gore &Associates, Elkhart, DE, USA
PLUS (Fig.4.55). The two-millimeter product is only available as DualMesh Plus
with the antimicrobial agents within it. These two chemicals are antimicrobial
agents that are added to decrease the risk of infection and, because of the silver,
impart a brown color to the “PLUS” products. At this time, these products are the
only synthetic materials impregnated with any type of any antimicrobial or bactericidal agents. DualMesh PLUS with Holes (Fig.4.56) is of the same construction as

88
Fig. 4.55 DualMesh
PLUS
Fig. 4.56 DualMesh
PLUS with holes
K. A. LeBlanc
that of the DualMesh. The penetration of the holes requires that this product be of
1.5mm in thickness. The concept of the addition of these perforations is that there
may be greater penetration of the broblasts and other cells across the material and
these might reduce the incidence of seroma development.
Dulex is manufactured of laminated ePTFE and is available in 1mm or 2mm
thicknesses (Fig. 4.57). One surface (parietal) of the material is studded with
numerous outcroppings as seen on the scanning electron microscopic view that
are approximately 400 microns apart. This gives the product the gross appearance of sandpaper. The intent of this surface is to provide for greater broblastic
attachment and thereby greater collagen deposition on this parietal surface. The
opposite surface (visceral) is smooth and faces the intestine in theintraperitoneal
onlay repair.

4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
Fig. 4.57 Dulex
Fig. 4.58 MycroMesh
89
MycroMesh is also a dual-sided perforated prosthetic with one surface of three
microns and the other of 17–22 microns (Fig. 4.58). The latter surface is textured.
This material is perforated for reasons that are similar to that of the DualMesh Plus
with holes. It is only one millimeter thick, however. Mycromesh PLUS is impregnated with the antimicrobials silver and chlorhexidine (Fig.4.59). It is not designed
for intraperitoneal usage.
Soft Tissue Patch is the earliest implants of these ePTFE products and was the
product utilized in the very rst laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (Fig.4.60) [4].
The variety of available congurations of this product has increased over the last
several years. Its use, however, has waned because of the development of the other
products that are listed in Table4.12. Like MycroMesh, it should not contact any
viscera when used.

90
Fig. 4.59 MycroMesh
PLUS
Fig. 4.60 Soft tissue
patch
K. A. LeBlanc
4.8 Miscellaneous Flat Products
There are ranges of materials that do not t into the exact categories above
(Table4.14). For instance, Inomesh is a product made of PVDF and polybutylene
adipate with laser cut holes (Fig. 4.61). MotifMesh and Omyra are identical in
design and concept (Figs. 4.62 and 4.63). There are made of condensed PTFE
(cPTFE) and designed for use in contact with the intestine. The PTFE is laminated
and then condensed with a heated compression process. The nonporous material is
then laser micromachined to create the macroporous structure of the nal product.
They claim to be “a bacterial resistant anti-adhesive mesh.”

4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
91
Table 4.14 Miscellaneous
at mesh products
Fig. 4.61 InoMesh
Fig. 4.62 Motifmesh
Inomesh, Medlinx Acacia, Singapore
MotifMESH, Proxy Biomedical Ltd., Galway, Ireland
Omyra, B.Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany
Fig. 4.63 Omyra mesh

92
K. A. LeBlanc
4.9 Combination Flat Synthetic Prosthetics
This grouping of these products is made because there is a permanent portion of these
materials and an absorbable component to the product. These prostheses are generally
not meant to contact any viscera and do not possess a specic shape. (Table4.15)
Adhesix, Parietene ProGrip, and Parietex ProGrip all have self-attaching portions of the prosthesis so that once placed onto the tissue surface, they will xate
themselves (Figs.4.64 and 4.65). These “gripping portions” are absorbable. The
permanent portions of Adhesix and Parietene ProGrip are made of PP while the
Parietex ProGrip is POL. Adhesix has a coating on one side that is made of polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyethylene glycol. This coating turns into an adhesive gel
when it comes into contact with both heat and humidity. Parietex ProGrip
Laparoscopic is a at sheet of polyester that has microgrips of polylactic acid that
last >18months (Fig.4.66). It differs from the other ProGrip products in that it has
Table 4.15 Combination
products
Fig. 4.64 Adhesix
Adhesix, Davol, Inc., Warwick, RI, USA
Easy Prothes Partially Absorbable PAF, TransEasy Medical
Tech.Co.Ltd., Beijing, China
Easy Prothes Partially Absorbable PAS, TransEasy Medical
Tech.Co.Ltd., Beijing, China
4D Laparoscopic Mesh, Cousin Biotech, Wervicq-Sud, France
4D Mesh Ventral, Cousin Biotech, Wervicq-Sud, France
Parietene ProGrip, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Parietex ProGrip, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Parietex ProGrip Laparoscopic, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN,
USA
TiMesh, GfE Medizintechnik, Nuremburg, Germany
Vypro, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA
Vypro II, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA
Ultrapro, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA
Ultrapro Advanced, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA

4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
Fig. 4.65 Parietene
ProGrip (All rights
reserved; used with
permission of Medtronic,
Inc.)
Fig. 4.66 Parietex
ProGrip laparoscopic (All
rights reserved; used with
permission of Medtronic,
Inc.)
93
a green portion to delineate the medial aspect of the mesh and has a light coating of
collagen to make manipulation during robotic use easier.
Easy Prothes Partially Absorbable is a partially absorbable product (Fig.4.67).
It is a combination of PP and poly(glycolide-cocaprolactone) [PGCL] monolaments. The PGCL portion will be completely absorbed within 90–120days. It is
2
available in two versions, both of which have a PP weight of 30g/m
, which is the
nal weight of the material after degradation of the absorbable material. The difference lies in the weight of the PGCL, which are 30g/m2 in the PAF material and
60g/m2 in the PAS product. 4D Laparoscopic Mesh is made of a base of a 25% PP
base with the remainder of resorbable PLLA (Fig.4.68). It is approximately 30 gm/
m2 postabsorption. The 4D Ventral is a at sheet and differs from the 4D mesh in
that it is 40% PP and 60% PLLA (Fig.4.69).
TiMESH has been described above and is one of the few products in this section that can be placed against the viscera (Fig. 4.37). The materials, Vypro
(25gm/m
2
) and Vypro II (30gm/m2) are actually a combination of PP and the
absorbable polymer polydioxione (Fig.4.70). The combination of these materials results in a very pliable and malleable material. Once the polydioxione has
been absorbed, the PP that remains has very large interstices (>3 mm) into
which the broblasts and collagen are deposited. The aim of these types of products is the improvement in the abdominal wall compliance that is more normal

94
Fig. 4.67 Easy prothes
partially absorbable
Fig. 4.68 4D laparoscopic
K. A. LeBlanc
Fig. 4.69 4D ventral
in function because of the very lightweight PP that remains. Vypro II is designed
for inguinal hernia repair while Vypro is made for preperitoneal incisional hernia repair. Ultrapro mesh is a similar concept and is manufactured from approx-
imately equal parts of the absorbable poliglecaprone- 25 monolament ber and
the non-absorbable lightweight PP (Fig.4.71). A portion of the PP is dyed. The

4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
Fig. 4.70 Vypro and Vypro II (Image courtesy of Ethicon, Inc.)
95
Fig. 4.71 Ultrapro at
mesh (Image courtesy of
Ethicon, Inc.)
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
