Commentary - Case Reports in Surgery and Invasive Procedures (2022) Volume 6, Issue 1

Current state of robotics surgery and minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Frances Ferraro^*

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Kynsey Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka

*Corresponding Author:

Frances Ferraro
Department of Surgery,
Faculty of Medicine,
University of Colombo,
Kynsey Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka
E-mail: francesferraro@yahoo.co.uk

Received: 27-Dec-2021, Manuscript No. AACRSIP-22-54194; Editor assigned: 29- Dec-2021, PreQC No. AACRSIP-22-54194(PQ); Reviewed: 12-Jan 2022, QC No. AACRSIP-22-54194; Revised: 14-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. AACRSIP-22-54194(R); Published: 21-Jan-2022, DOI:10.35841/aacrsip- 6.1.105 

Citation: Cassiusnum G. IVC filter removal following implantation time and single-stage resection with intraoperative filter placement. Case Rep Surg Invasive Proced. 2022; 6(1):105

Keywords

Robotics surgery, Minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Abstract

Negligibly intrusive medical procedure is gradually taking over as the favored usable methodology for colorectal sicknesses. Be that as it may, a large number of the techniques remain actually troublesome. This article will give an outline of the condition of insignificantly intrusive medical procedure and the many advances that have been made throughout the most recent twenty years. Negligibly obtrusive medical procedure has been adjusted to a wide assortment of colorectal systems. The first laparoscopic right colectomy was distributed by Jacobs in 1991 soon after which Fowler played out the first laparoscopic left colectomy. Since these underlying reports, a few enormous examinations tracked down that the oncologic results of laparoscopic colectomy were comparable to open a medical procedure and that patients going through laparoscopic colectomy would in general have further developed momentary results, for example, diminished blood misfortune, more limited length of stay, quicker return of inside work, less twisted difficulties, and worked on postoperative pain. Despite the developing collection of proof supporting the utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for colon disease, the reception of the method was moderately delayed with the use of laparoscopic colectomy just coming to 41.6% in 2010.

Introduction

In spite of its benefits over open a medical procedure, there are a few constraints to negligibly intrusive medical procedure. Loss of binocular vision, confusing movement of the instruments, intensified developments, equal instrumentation, poor ergonomics, expanded movement expected to achieve a given task, and loss of proprioception are altogether normal limits. To conquer a portion of these deficits, the utilization of hand-helped laparoscopy was introduced. Although studies have shown comparative oncologic results, the transient result advantages of laparoscopy were lost with the hand-helped technique. Furthermore, the incisional hernia rate for handhelped laparoscopic medical procedure has answered to be somewhere in the range of 6 and 10.6%, albeit this might be dependent upon port site placement [1].

Mechanical technology surgery

The da Vinci automated framework (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) was created to defeat the constraints of conventional laparoscopic medical procedure. This framework gave a few possible benefits over conventional laparoscopic medical procedure including a steady camera stage, threelayered (3D) imaging, further developed ergonomics, quake end, able to use both hands ability, movement scaling, and instruments with numerous levels of opportunity. The initial two mechanical helped colectomies portrayed in the writing were acted in 2001 by Weber. A few examinations have looked at the results of laparoscopic versus automated colectomy and generally, mechanical helped right colectomy had comparable perioperative and oncologic results to the detriment of longer activity times, and expanded careful expenses. A few examinations recommend there might be some benefit to automated right colectomy concerning diminished assessed blood loss and quicker return of gut function. Although no critical advantage of mechanical medical procedure has been seen, a few creators feel that an automated right colectomy is a decent methodology for specialists to handle the expectation to learn and adapt of mechanical medical procedure prior to undertaking more mind boggling activities, for example, a low front resection, while others compare the utilization of mechanical medical procedure for right colectomy to taking a Ferrari to the supermarket to do the week by week shopping. Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery [2].

Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM) was presented during the 1980s by Buess as a procedure to eliminate neighborhood rectal injuries not amiable to other perianal techniques. This method, nonetheless, had a few constraints including cost, complex instrumentation, and a lofty learning curve. In light of the limits of TEM, transanal negligibly intrusive medical procedure (TAMIS) was created by Atallah. This strategy furnished a minimal expense stage with insignificant arrangement time and low gear costs, to some extent on account of the adaption of conventional laparoscopic instruments. Introductory case series have exhibited the achievability and adequacy of this technique. However, there are impediments to this strategy. Because of the utilization of standard unbending laparoscopic instruments and the prohibitive life systems of the rectum, the functioning points can become testing and frequently require changing out instruments with the camera port or the use of extreme force that breaks the single-cut laparoscopic medical procedure (SILS) port seal bringing about deficiency of CO2. With its articulating arms, the da Vinci framework appears to be well adroit to beat these impediments and the principal portrayal of mechanical TAMIS in a cadaveric model was distributed in 2011 by Atallah et al, since this underlying report, a few extra creators have distributed case series on automated TAMIS. The underlying aftereffects of these examinations are promising, notwithstanding; bigger randomized controlled investigations will be expected to additionally characterize the job of mechanical TAMIS [3].

Current robotic platforms and the need for new technologies

One of the principle concerns related with the utilization of the current mechanical innovation is the significant expense. The exorbitant cost of the da Vinci framework makes it excessively expensive for some careful bases on the world and accessible just in chose emergency clinics. Regardless of whether the cost of these frameworks will fall or rise is simply guess. Some accept that multidisciplinary utilization of the robot might amortize the underlying speculation, then again others accept that upgrades in innovation will expand the expense of these frameworks.

Other potential impediments are the moderately predetermined number of viable instruments and hardware, as well as the failure to change the surgical table position once the robot has been docked. This can be viewed as a transitory issue as new advancements have and will additionally create to address these inadequacies. The majority of the burdens of the momentum automated framework have been distinguished, and many exploration groups have attempted to track down cures and upgrades for the innovation. Also, a few models have been created and a few new careful stages have been sent off.

References

1. Shekhar R, Dandekar O, Bhat V, et al. Live augmented reality: a new visualization method for laparoscopic surgery using continuous volumetric computed tomography. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(8):1976–85.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

2. Mauri G, Cova L, De Beni S. et al. Real-time US-CT/MRI image fusion for guidance of thermal ablation of liver tumors undetectable with US: results in 295 cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38(1):143–51.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

3. Hostettler A, Nicolau SA, Rémond Y, et al. A real-time predictive simulation of abdominal viscera positions during quiet free breathing. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2010;103(2–3):169–84.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref