4.6 Article

The new robotic TELELAP ALF-X in gynecological surgery: single-center experience

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4187-9

关键词

TELELAP ALF-X; Robotic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Gynecology

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background To evaluate the safety and feasibility of the new robotic TELELAP ALF-X platform in a heterogeneous series of gynecological procedures. Methods Between September 2013 and May 2014, 146 patients were enrolled in this Phase II study trial. Patients with presumed benign or borderline adnexal disease, and benign and early stage malignant uterine disease were prospectively included. Results Median age was 52 years (range 19-79 years), and median BMI was 23.7 (range 17.3-34.0 kg/m(2)). Sixty-two patients (32.5 %) underwent mono/bilateral salpingooophorectomy or cyst removal (Group A), four patients (2.7 %) myomectomy (Group B), 46 patients (31.5 %) total hysterectomy (Group C), and 34 (23.3 %) endometrial cancer staging (Group D). Median docking time was 7 min (range 3-36). Median OT was 35 min (range 17-145) in the Group A, 40 min (range 10-50) in the Group B, 133 min (range 58-320) in the Group C, and 160 min (range 69-290) in the Group D. Reduction in OT over the study period for hysterectomy (p < 0.001) and adnexal surgery (p < 0.002) was observed. We registered two laparoscopic conversion (3.2 %) in the Group A and two (4.3 %) in the Group C. In the Group D, we showed one (2.9 %) laparoscopic and two (5.8 %) laparotomic conversions. One patient (2.17 %) in the Group C was readmitted in the early postoperative period for severe vaginal bleeding. Conclusions We report the first series of a novel robotic approach for the treatment of various gynecological conditions. When performed by experienced minimally invasive surgeons, TELELAP ALF-X is feasible and safe. Further studies are mandatory to define the benefits, advantages, and costs of this new robotic approach with respect to others minimally invasive approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据