nach oben

Erschienen in:

08.05.2022 | Review Article

Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review

verfasst von: Afra Zahid, Muhammad Ayyan, Minaam Farooq, Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema, Abia Shahid, Faiza Naeem, Muhammad Abdullah Ilyas, Shehreen Sohail

Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

To establish the feasibility of robotic surgical procedures in urology in terms of the applications, merits, and demerits as well as the postoperative and oncological outcomes while comparing it with the conventional approaches. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort studies on Robot-Assisted urological surgical procedures in comparison with the conventional methods. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane “Risk of Bias” tool. A qualitative narrative synthesis of the data extracted from the studies was performed and presented in tabulated form. After screening, 39 studies were included in our review (7 Randomized Controlled Trials and 32 Cohort studies). Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy appears to be associated with lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. For Robot-Assisted Cystectomy, the results suggest longer operative time and fewer complications. Robot-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy was found to be associated with fewer perioperative complications and longer mean operative time while Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy was associated with less positive surgical margins and reduced need for postoperative analgesia. The mean operative time was longer while the length of stay was shorter for the robotic approach in inguinal lymphadenectomy and ureteral reimplantation. The feasibility of Robot-Assisted surgery varied for different outcome measures as well as for different procedures. Some common advantages were a shorter length of stay, lesser blood loss, and fewer complications while the drawbacks included longer operative time.

Study protocol PROSPERO database (Registration Number: CRD42021256623).

Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S (1988) A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.1354CrossRefPubMed

Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Coptcoat MJ, Wickham JEA (1989) A surgeon robot prostatectomy—a laboratory evaluation. J Med Eng Technol 13:273–277. https://doi.org/10.3109/03091908909016201CrossRefPubMed

Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Ng WS et al (1991) The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 205:35–38. https://doi.org/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1991_205_259_02CrossRef

Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT (1994) AESOP robotic arm. Surg Endosc 8:1131CrossRefPubMed

Thaly R, Shah K, Patel VR (2007) Applications of robots in urology. J Robot Surg 1:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-006-0003-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bullock K (1997) Medical renaissance. Trustee 50:5–6PubMed

Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR et al (2012) Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 187:1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.089CrossRefPubMed

Satkunasivam R, Tallman CT, Taylor JM et al (2019) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis of oncologic, perioperative, and complication-related outcomes. Eur Urol Oncol 2:443–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.008CrossRefPubMed

Shekelle P, Maggard-gibbons M (2019) Robotic-assisted surgery in partial nephrectomy and cystectomy. Prospero

10.

Crocerossa F, Carbonara U, Cantiello F et al (2021) Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 80:428–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2020.10.034CrossRefPubMed

11.

Veccia A, Antonelli A, Francavilla S et al (2019) Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases. World J Urol 384:845–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-019-03020-1CrossRef

12.

Lai A, Dobbs RW, Talamini S et al (2020) Single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Transl Androl Urol 9:89805–89905. https://doi.org/10.21037/TAU.2019.11.05CrossRef

13.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Training. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 18 Nov 2021

14.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSU.2010.02.007CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bouhassira EE (2015) The SAGE encyclopedia of stem cell research. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, SAGE, CaliforniaCrossRef

16.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B et al (2002) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60:864–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01881-2CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T et al (2010) Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57:453–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.008CrossRefPubMed

19.

Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 302:1557–1564. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1451CrossRef

20.

Park JW, Won Lee H, Kim W et al (2011) Comparative assessment of a single surgeon’s series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. J Endourol 25:597–602. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0229CrossRefPubMed

21.

Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F et al (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8:1503–1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2011.02215.XCrossRefPubMed

22.

Ploussard G, De La Taille A, Moulin M et al (2014) Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 65:610–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049CrossRefPubMed

23.

Niklas C, Saar M, Berg B et al (2016) da Vinci and open radical prostatectomy: comparison of clinical outcomes and analysis of insurance costs. Urol Int 96:287–294. https://doi.org/10.1159/000431104CrossRefPubMed

24.

Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R et al (2018) Five-year outcomes for a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 4:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.007CrossRefPubMed

25.

Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388:1057–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-XCrossRefPubMed

26.

Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM et al (2010) A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 57:274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.001CrossRefPubMed

27.

Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J et al (2013) Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 189:474–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2012.09.077CrossRefPubMed

28.

Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD et al (2015) Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 67:1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.043CrossRefPubMed

29.

Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K et al (2016) A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL). Eur Urol 69:613–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.038CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gastecka A, Hnatyszyn-Dzikowska A, Hejka P et al (2018) Cost comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Heal Policy Technol 7:420–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.10.008CrossRef

31.

Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP et al (2018) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet (Lond, Engl) 391:2525–2536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30996-6CrossRef

32.

Zhang S, Lin T, Zhang Q et al (2020) Comparison of perioperative outcomes in robot-assisted radical cystectomy and laparoscopic radical cystectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2074CrossRef

33.

Kukreja JB, Metcalfe MJ, Qiao W et al (2020) Cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy using a propensity-matched cohort. Eur Urol Focus 6:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.001CrossRefPubMed

34.

Nazemi T, Galich A, Sterrett S et al (2006) Radical nephrectomy performed by open, laparoscopy with or without hand-assistance or robotic methods by the same surgeon produces comparable perioperative results. Int Braz J Urol 32:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382006000100003CrossRefPubMed

35.

Hemal AK, Kumar A (2009) A prospective comparison of laparoscopic and robotic radical nephrectomy for T1–2N0M0 renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol 27:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0321-9CrossRefPubMed

36.

Jeong IG, Khandwala YS, Kim JH et al (2017) Association of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and health care costs, 2003 to 2015. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 318:1561–1568. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.14586CrossRef

37.

Gershman B, Bukavina L, Chen Z et al (2020) The association of robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with perioperative outcomes and hospital costs. Eur Urol Focus 6:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.004CrossRefPubMed

38.

Deane LA, Lee HJ, Box GN et al (2008) Robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial/wedge nephrectomy: a comparison of intraoperative and perioperative results from a single institution. J Endourol 22:947–952. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0376CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kural AR, Atug F, Tufek I, Akpinar H (2009) Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes. J Endourol 23:1491–1497. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0377CrossRefPubMed

40.

Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG et al (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182:866–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.037CrossRefPubMed

41.

Wang AJ, Bhayani SB (2009) Robotic partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: single-surgeon analysis of >100 consecutive procedures. Urology 73:306–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.09.049CrossRefPubMed

42.

Lee S, Oh J, Hong SK et al (2011) Open versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: effect on clinical outcome. J Endourol 25(7):1181–1185CrossRefPubMed

43.

Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T et al (2011) Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology 78:813–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.065CrossRefPubMed

44.

Khalifeh A, Autorino R, Hillyer SP et al (2013) Comparative outcomes and assessment of trifecta in 500 robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy cases: a single surgeon experience. J Urol 189:1236–1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.021CrossRefPubMed

45.

Trudeau V, Gandaglia G, Shiffmann J et al (2014) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for uppertract urothelial cancer: a population-based assessment of costs and perioperative outcomes. J Can Urol Assoc 8:E695–E701. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2051CrossRef

46.

Lee H, Kim HJ, Lee SE et al (2019) Comparison of oncological and perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic nephroureterectomy approaches in patients with non-metastatic upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Smith RP, Oliver JL, Peters CA (2011) Pediatric robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: comparison with open surgery. J Urol 185:1876–1881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.072CrossRefPubMed

48.

Schomburg JL, Haberman K, Willihnganz-Lawson KH, Shukla AR (2014) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: a single surgeon comparison to open surgery. J Pediatr Urol 10:875–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.02.013CrossRefPubMed

49.

Kurtz MP, Leow JJ, Varda BK et al (2016) Robotic versus open pediatric ureteral reimplantation: costs and complications from a nationwide sample. J Pediatr Urol 12:408.e1-408.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.06.016CrossRefPubMed

50.

Elizondo RA, Au JK, Song SH et al (2020) Open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: hospital charges analysis and outcomes at a single institution. J Pediatr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.12.016CrossRefPubMed

51.

Brandao LF, Autorino R, Zargar H et al (2014) Robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy: step-by-step technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol 66:898–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.04.003CrossRefPubMed

52.

Arghami A, Dy BM, Bingener J et al (2015) Single-port robotic-assisted adrenalectomy: feasibility, safety, and cost-effectiveness. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 19:1–5. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00218CrossRef

53.

Probst KA, Ohlmann CH, Saar M et al (2016) Robot-assisted vs open adrenalectomy: evaluation of cost-effectiveness and peri-operative outcome. BJU Int 118:952–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13529CrossRefPubMed

54.

Singh A, Jaipuria J, Goel A et al (2018) Comparing outcomes of robotic and open inguinal lymph node dissection in patients with carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 199:1518–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.061CrossRefPubMed

55.

Yu H, Lu Y, Xiao Y et al (2019) Robot-assisted laparoscopic antegrade versus open inguinal lymphadenectomy: a retrospective controlled study. BMC Urol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0571-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT (2021) Risk-of-bias visualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 12:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/JRSM.1411CrossRefPubMed

57.

Tang K, Jiang K, Chen H et al (2017) Robotic vs retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: a systematic review and an meta-analysis update. Oncotarget 8:32237–32257. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13332CrossRefPubMed

58.

Cao L, Yang Z, Qi L, Chen M (2019) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015770CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Rai BP, Bondad J, Vasdev N et al (2020) Robot-assisted vs open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults. BJU Int 125:765–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.14870CrossRefPubMed

60.

Kimura S, Iwata T, Foerster B et al (2019) Comparison of perioperative complications and health-related quality of life between robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 26:760–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJU.14005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Iwata T, Kimura S, Foerster B et al (2019) Oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 37:1557–1570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02708-8CrossRefPubMed

62.

Li J, Peng L, Cao D et al (2020) Comparison of perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 10:1789. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2020.551052/BIBTEXCrossRef

63.

Xia L, Wang X, Xu T, Guzzo TJ (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy versus open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 31:893–909. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2016.0351CrossRefPubMed

64.

Tsai SH, Tseng PT, Sherer BA et al (2019) Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary studies. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 15:e1963. https://doi.org/10.1002/RCS.1963CrossRef

65.

Chandrasekharam VVS, Babu R (2020) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extravesical versus conventional laparoscopic extravesical ureteric reimplantation for pediatric primary vesicoureteric reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 36:1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00383-020-04749-2CrossRefPubMed

66.

Veccia A, Antonelli A, Francavilla S et al (2020) Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases. World J Urol 38:845–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00345-019-03020-1CrossRefPubMed

67.

Tang K, Li H, Xia D et al (2015) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25:187–195. https://doi.org/10.1089/LAP.2014.0431CrossRefPubMed

68.

Ruurda JP, Visser PL, Broeders IAMJ (2003) Analysis of procedure time in robot-assisted surgery: comparative study in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Comput Aided Surg 8:24–29. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929080309146099CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review
verfasst von: Afra Zahid
Muhammad Ayyan
Minaam Farooq
Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema
Abia Shahid
Faiza Naeem
Muhammad Abdullah Ilyas
Shehreen Sohail
Publikationsdatum: 08.05.2022
Verlag: Springer London
Erschienen in: Journal of Robotic Surgery / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Elektronische ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01416-7

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

08.05.2024 Postoperative Wundinfektion Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Wundprotektoren bei offenen Eingriffen am unteren Gastrointestinaltrakt schützt vor Infektionen im Op.-Gebiet – und dient darüber hinaus der besseren Sicht. Das bestätigt mit großer Robustheit eine randomisierte Studie im Fachblatt JAMA Surgery.

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

07.05.2024 Suizid Nachrichten

Der belastende Arbeitsalltag wirkt sich negativ auf die psychische Gesundheit der Angehörigen ärztlicher Berufsgruppen aus. Chirurginnen und Chirurgen bilden da keine Ausnahme, im Gegenteil.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Implementation of robotic surgery in Dubai: a focus on outcomes

Scarless laparoscopic incisions in Pfannenstiel (slip): the first 50 cases using an innovative approach in pediatric robotic surgery

Development of an affordable, immersive model for robotic vaginal cuff closure: a randomized trial

Robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic incisional hernia repair following oncologic surgery: short- and long-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial

Robotic CME in obese patients: advantage of robotic ultrasound scan for vascular dissection

Surgical treatment of large and complicated hiatal hernias with the new resorbable mesh with hydrogel barrier (Phasix™ ST): a preliminary study

Update Chirurgie