4.5 Article

New trends in minimally invasive urological surgery. What is beyond the robot?

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 505-513

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-010-0588-5

关键词

Augmented reality; Computer-assisted surgery; Imaging-guided systems; Laparoscopy; LESS; NOTES; Robot; Soft tissue navigation surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To review the minimal-invasive development of surgical technique in urology focusing on nomenclature, history and outcomes of Laparo-Endoscopic Single-site Surgery (LESS), Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and Computer-Assisted Surgery (CAS). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in order to find article related to LESS, NOTES and CAS in urology. The most relevant papers over the last 10 years were selected in base to the experience from the panel of experts, journal, authorship and/or content. Seven hundred and fifty manuscripts were found. Papers on LESS describe feasibility/safety in most of the procedures with a clinical experience of more than 300 cases and five compared results to standard laparoscopy without showing significant differences. NOTES accesses have been proved their feasibility/safety in experimental study. In human, the only procedures performed are on kidney and through a hybrid-Transvaginal route. New robots overcome the main drawbacks of the DaVinciA (R) platform. The use of CAS is increasing its popularity in urology. LESS has been applied in clinical practice, but only ongoing technical and instrumental refinement will define its future role and overall benefit. The transition to a clinical application of NOTES seems at present only possible with multiple NOTES access and transvaginal access. Robot and Soft Tissue Navigation appear to be important to improve surgical skills. We are already witness to the advantages offered by the former even if costs need to be redefined based on pending long-term results. The latter will probably upgrade the quality of surgery in a near future.

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

4.5
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