4.2 Article

Robotic surgery using Senhance® robotic platform: single center experience with first 100 cases

期刊

JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 371-376

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-019-01000-6

关键词

Robotic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Senhance robotic system

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Until recently, robotic surgery has been associated only with the da Vinci robotic system. A novel Senhance(R) robotic system (TransEnterix Surgical Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA) was introduced almost 5 years ago. Published reports on experience using this robotic platform are very limited. We present a prospective analysis of the first 100 robotic surgeries in abdominal surgery, gynecology, and urology in Klaipeda University Hospital, Klaipeda, Lithuania. Out of 100 operated patients during the mentioned period, 49 were female and 51 men, age range 27-79 years, on an average 55 years. 39 underwent robotic abdominal surgical procedures, 31-urological, and 30 gynecological surgeries. Duration of surgery varied from 30 min to 6 h and 5 min, on an average 2 h 25 min. Almost half 49 (49%) were operated on for malignant diseases: prostate cancer-27, renal cell carcinoma-1, endometrial cancer-7, ovarian cancer-1, colorectal cancer-13 (7 colon and 6 rectum). In-hospital stay was on an average 4 days, range 1-15 days. There were 3 (3%) conversions: two to laparoscopy (both undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy) and one to open (undergoing total hysterectomy). 6 (6%) complications occurred during 30 postoperative days, 2 demanding surgery. According to the Clavien-Dido classification, they were grade II in 3, grade III a in 1 and grade III b in 2 cases. There was no mortality in this patient population. Our experience with different types of robotic surgeries allows us to state that the Senhance(R) robotic system is feasible and safe in general surgery, gynecology, and urology, and wider implementation of this system worldwide is simply a question of time.

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

4.2
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