Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Indian Journal of Surgery
Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Surgery 3/2012

01.06.2012 | Review Article

Innovations in Endosurgery—Journey into the Past of the Future

To Ride the SILS Bandwagon or Not?

verfasst von: Brij B. Agarwal, Chintamani, Kamran Ali, Karan Goyal, Krishan C. Mahajan

Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Progress in surgical practice has paralleled the civilizational evolution. Surgery has progressed from being the last resort in saving life to being form and function preserver. Post-renaissance Industrial age gave an impetus to this march of surgery. The currently on going digital technological revolution has further catalysed this march. Having achieved the stabilized and acceptable clinical outcomes, the surgeon has embarked on a journey of improving patient reported outcomes (PRO). Improvement in PROs with the advent of laparoscopic surgery with the attendant emphasis on minimising invasion has led to debates about invasion being just parietal or holistic in physiological sense. There is a concern that parietal invasiveness shouldn’t be a trade-off for compromised clinical outcomes. Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) in its current avatar with current instrumentation seems to be an enthusiastic bandwagon rolling on with the cosmetic benefits acting as veil to hide the potential clinical concerns. History of surgical innovations is riddled with tales of vindictiveness and vicissitude. Lest the same fate befalls SILS we would do better to examine the SILS bandwagon in its current form till the emerging technologies address the current concerns.
Literatur
1.
Agarwal BB (2008) Journey of the carbon-literate and climate-conscious endosurgeon having a head, heart, hands, and holistic sense of responsibility. Surg Endosc 22:2539–2540PubMedCrossRef
2.
Agarwal BB (2009) Informed consent—‘da Vinci code’ for our safety in empowered patient’s safety. Surg Endosc 23:1158–1160PubMedCrossRef
3.
Agarwal BB, Sarangi R, Mahajan KC (2010) Outcomes with thyroidectomy: what are they?—patient reported voice quality, not merely nerve preservation. Surg Endosc 24:735–737PubMedCrossRef
4.
Agarwal BB, Agarwal S (2009) Recurrent laryngeal nerve, phonation and voice preservation—energy devices in thyroid surgery—a note of caution. Langenbecks Arch Surg 394:911–912PubMedCrossRef
5.
Riskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM (2006) Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg 244:686–693PubMedCrossRef
6.
Beger HG, Arbogast R (2006) The art of surgery in the 21st century: based on natural sciences and new ethical dimensions. Langebecks Arch Surg 391:143–148CrossRef
7.
Wexner SD (2009) Trials and tribulations in the history of surgical innovation: SAGES 2007 presidential address. Surg Endosc 23(6):1171–1179PubMedCrossRef
8.
Litynski GS (1998) Kurt Semm and the fight against scepticism: endoscopic hemostasis, laparoscopic appendectomy, and Semm’s impact on the “laparoscopic revolution”. JSLS 2:309–313PubMed
9.
Dumas A (1932) The History of Anaesthesia. J Natl Med Assoc 24:6–9PubMed
10.
11.
Satava RM (2008) Advanced technologies and the future of medicine and surgery. Yonsei Med J 49:873–878PubMedCrossRef
12.
Agarwal BB (2010) Umbilicus, navel, belly button—vitruvian guide for esthetic cosmetics: a Da Vinci code for beautiful informed consent. Surg Endosc 24:236–238PubMedCrossRef
13.
Beger HG, Rau BM (2006) Randomized controlled clinical trials support but not substitute of decision making in surgery. Langebecks Arch Surg 391:301–303CrossRef
14.
Agarwal BB (2009) Letter 3: randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J Surg 96:473–481CrossRef
15.
Agarwal BB, Mahajan KC (2010) Nomenclature of abbreviated acronyms (Naa…)—caveamus surgeones. Surg Endosc 24:724–725PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Weizman D, Cyriac J, Urbach DR (2007) What is meant when a laparoscopic surgical procedure is described as “safe”? Surg Endosc 21:1369–1372PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Pescatori M (2011) STARR and the older surgeon: what makes the difference? Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1497–1498PubMedCrossRef
21.
Angelos P (2009) Complications, errors, and surgical ethics. World Journal of Surgery 33:609–611PubMedCrossRef
22.
Rikkers LF (2022) The bandwagon effect. J Gastrointest Surg 6:787–94CrossRef
23.
Cuschieri A (2006) Nature of human error: implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 244:642–648PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Regenbogen SE, Greenberg CC, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA (2007) Patterns of technical error among surgical malpractice claims: an analysis of strategies to prevent injury to surgical patients. Ann Surg 246:705–711PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
28.
Millat B, Fingerhut A, Cuschieri A (2006) Live surgery and video presentations: seeing is believing … but no more: a plea for structured rigor and ethical considerations. Surg Endosc 20:845–847PubMedCrossRef
29.
Eypasch E, Lefering R, Kum CK, Troidl H (1995) Probability of adverse events that have not yet occurred: a statistical reminder. BMJ 311:619–620PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Agarwal BB, Gupta M, Agarwal S, Mahajan KC (2007) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy without using any energy source. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 17:296–301PubMedCrossRef
32.
Agarwal BB, Gupta M, Agarwal S, Mahajan KC (2007) Anatomical footprint for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy without using any energy source: a modified technique. Surg Endosc 21:2154–2158PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
35.
Ubel PA, Jepson C, Silver-Isenstadt A (2003) Don’t ask, don’t tell: a change in medical student attitudes after obstetrics/gynecology clerkships toward seeking consent for pelvic examinations on an anesthetized patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:575–579PubMedCrossRef
36.
Satava RM (2002) The bio-intelligence age: surgery after the information age. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 6:795–799PubMedCrossRef
37.
Sugimoto M (2010) Recent advances in visualization, imaging, and navigation in hepatobiliary and pancreatic sciences. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17:574–576PubMedCrossRef
38.
Curet MJ (2010) Shame on them. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery: are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?: comment on “Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy”. Arch Surg 145:1191–1192PubMedCrossRef
39.
Boni L, Dionigi G, Rovera F (2009) Natural orifices transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and other allied “ultra” minimally invasive procedures: are we loosing the plot? Surg Endosc 23:927–929PubMedCrossRef
40.
Agarwal BB, Agarwal S (2008) Surgical pilgrimage—the need to avoid navigation through drains, medicine or ‘medisin’: our notes on NOTES. Surg Endosc 22:271–272PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bencsath KP, Falk G, Morris-Stiff G, Kroh M, Walsh RM, Chalikonda S (2011) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: do patients care? J Gastrointest Surg 29
42.
Agarwal BB, Agarwal S (2007) The man–machine interface, a paradox of technology. Is the black box (BB) concept an angel or a demon? Surg Endosc 21:1680PubMedCrossRef
43.
Cheerleader or watchdog? [No authors listed] Nature 2009 25;459:1033
44.
Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM et al (2009) Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. J Lancet 374:1097–1104CrossRef
45.
Agarwal BB, Chintamani C (2011) Reminder of the metrics of endosurgical innovation. Arch Surg 146:1108PubMedCrossRef
46.
Blazeby JM, Avery K, Sprangers M, Pikhart H, Fayers P, Donovan J (2006) Health-related quality of life measurement in randomized clinical trials in surgical oncology. J Clin Oncol 24:3178–3186PubMedCrossRef
47.
(1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. [No authors listed]. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078
48.
Barone JE, Lincer RM (1991) Correction: a prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 325:1517–1518PubMed
49.
50.
Slater K, Strong RW, Wall DR, Lynch SV (2002) Iatrogenic bile duct injury: the scourge of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. ANZ J Surg 72:83–88PubMedCrossRef
51.
Walker T (2008) Biliary injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: why still a problem? Gastroentrology 134:894–895CrossRef
52.
Maschuw K, Osei-Agyemang T, Weyers P et al (2008) The impact of self-belief on laparoscopic performance of novices and experienced surgeons. World J Surg 32:1911–1916PubMedCrossRef
53.
Strasberg SM, Gouma DJ (2012) ‘Extreme’ vasculobiliary injuries: association with fundus-down cholecystectomy in severely inflamed gallbladders. HPB (Oxford) 14:1–8CrossRef
54.
Buell JF, Cronin DC, Funaki B et al (2002) Devastating and fatal complications associated with combined vascular and bile duct injuries during cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 137:703–8, discussion 708–10PubMedCrossRef
55.
Dekker SW, Hugh TB (2008) Laparoscopic bile duct injury: understanding the psychology and heuristics of the error. ANZ J Surg 78:1109–1114PubMedCrossRef
56.
Lau KN, Sindram D, Agee N, Martinie JB, Iannitti DA (2010) Bile duct injury after single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 14:587–591PubMedCrossRef
57.
Vollmer CM Jr, Callery MP (2007) Biliary injury following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: why still a problem? Gastroenterology 133:1039–1041PubMedCrossRef
58.
Flum DR, Koepsell T, Heagerty P, Sinanan M, Dellinger EP (2001) Common bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the use of intraoperative cholangiography: adverse outcome or preventable error? Arch Surg 136:1287–1292PubMedCrossRef
59.
Agarwal BB, Mahajan KC (2010) Laparoscopic biliary tract injury prevention: zero tolerance, error free performance. Surg Endosc 24:728–729PubMedCrossRef
60.
Fry DE, Pine M, Jones BL, Meimban RJ (2010) Patient characteristics and the occurrence of never events. Arch Surg 145:148–151PubMedCrossRef
61.
Thompson KM, Oldenburg WA, Deschamps WA, Rupp WC, Smitth CD (2011) Chasing zero: the drive to eliminate surgical site infections. Ann Surg 254:430–7PubMedCrossRef
62.
Cuschieri A (2004) Surgical errors and their prevention. Surg Endosc 19:1013CrossRef
63.
Agarwal BB, Agarwal S, Gupta M, Mahajan K (2008) Transaxillary endoscopic excision of benign breast lumps: a new technique. Surg Endosc 22:407–410PubMedCrossRef
64.
Lee PC, Lo C, Lai PS, Chang JJ, Huang SJ, Lin MT et al (2010) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 97:1007–1012PubMedCrossRef
65.
Tsimoyiannis EC, Tsimogiannis KE, Pappas-Gogos G, Farantos C, Benetatos N, Mavridou P et al (2010) Different pain scores in single transumbilical incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus classic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 24:1842–1848PubMedCrossRef
66.
Marks J, Tacchino R, Roberts K, Onders R, Denoto G, Paraskeva P et al (2011) Prospective randomized controlled trial of traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: report of preliminary data. Am J Surg 201:369–373PubMedCrossRef
67.
Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702PubMedCrossRef
68.
Connor S (2009) Single-port-access cholecystectomy: history should not be allowed to repeat. World J Surg 33:1020–1021PubMedCrossRef
69.
Ma J, Cassera MA, Spaun GO, Hammill CW, Hansen PD, Aliabadi-Wahle S (2011) Randomized controlled trial comparing single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 254:22–27PubMedCrossRef
70.
Bignell M, Hindmarsh A, Nageswaran H, Mothe B, Jenkinson A, Mahon D, Rhodes M (2011) Assessment of cosmetic outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy among women 4 years after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is there a problem? Surg Endosc 25:2574–2577PubMedCrossRef
71.
Bencsath KP, Falk G, Morris-Stiff G, Kroh M, Walsh RM, Chalikonda S (2012) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: do patients care? J Gastrointest Surg 16(3):535–539
72.
Fischer L, Deckert A, Diener MK, Zimmermann JB, Büchler MW, Seiler CM (2011) Ranking of patient and surgeons’ perspectives for endpoints in randomized controlled trials—lessons learned from the POVATI trial [ISRCTN 60734227]. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:1061–1066PubMedCrossRef
73.
Lamadé W, Friedrich C, Ulmer C, Basar T, Weiss H, Thon KP (2011) Impact of body image on patients’ attitude towards conventional, minimal invasive, and natural orifice surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:331–336PubMedCrossRef
74.
Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Inan I, Hagen M (2011) Choosing the cosmetically superior laparoscopic access to the abdomen: the importance of the umbilicus. Surg Endosc 25:2578–2585PubMedCrossRef
75.
76.
Ioannidis JP (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294:218–228PubMedCrossRef
77.
78.
Colhoun HM, McKeigue PM, Davey Smith G (2003) Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 361:865–867PubMedCrossRef
79.
80.
Hey J, Roberts KJ, Morris-Stiff GJ, Toogood GJ (2012) Patient views through the keyhole: new perspectives on single-incision vs.multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy. HPB (Oxford) 14:242–246
Metadaten
Titel
Innovations in Endosurgery—Journey into the Past of the Future
To Ride the SILS Bandwagon or Not?
verfasst von
Brij B. Agarwal
Chintamani
Kamran Ali
Karan Goyal
Krishan C. Mahajan
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Indian Journal of Surgery / Ausgabe 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0972-2068
Elektronische ISSN: 0973-9793
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0583-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2012

Indian Journal of Surgery 3/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Review Article

Oncoplastic Breast Surgery

Review Article

Incidentally Detected Gallbladder Cancer- The Controversies and Algorithmic Approach to Management

Editorial

Crucial Controversies in Surgery

Editorial

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer-Should It Be the Standard of Care in India?

Review Article

Current Debates in Surgery – A Cross Sectional Study amongst Indian Surgeons

Review Article

Management of Common Bile Duct Stones in the Laparoscopic Era

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.