3.8 Article

Assessment of Anastomotic Perfusion in Left-Sided Robotic Assisted Colorectal Resection by Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography

期刊

MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY
卷 2019, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2019/3267217

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Indocyanine green fluorescent angiography (IcGA) has been used with success in guiding intraoperative management to prevent colorectal anastomotic complications. Prior studies in open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery, such as PILLAR II, have demonstrated a low anastomotic leak rate (1.4%). As the minimally invasive approach progresses from laparoscopic to robotic approach, the effect and safety of IcGA in assessing anastomotic perfusion in the latter deserve further investigation. Methods. The objective of the study was to determine the safety of IcGA in guiding intraoperative management of robotic assisted colorectal resection via perfusion assessment. The design was single-surgeon, retrospective case-control study. 74 patients underwent left-sided robotic assisted colorectal resection and anastomosis with IcGA guidance. 30 historical controls underwent left-sided robotic assisted colorectal resection and anastomosis without IcGA. Clinical, demographic, operative, and outcome variables were tabulated. Results. In the control group, 1 patient suffered a postoperative anastomotic stricture requiring no surgery, and 1 patient suffered an anastomotic dehiscence requiring return to the operating room. There were no anastomotic complications in the IcGA group, including 4 patients who underwent a change in the chosen level of anastomosis based on intraoperative IcGA. Conclusion. IcGA is safe to use as demonstrated by the very low rate of complications in this case series. It is also safe to rely on to guide re-resection and recreation of an anastomosis intraoperatively by demonstration of blood flow. This may help offset the loss of tactile feedback and assessment of tension in the robotic platform.

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

3.8
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