Cargando…
_version_ 1784638019116990464
author de’Angelis, Nicola
Khan, Jim
Marchegiani, Francesco
Bianchi, Giorgio
Aisoni, Filippo
Alberti, Daniele
Ansaloni, Luca
Biffl, Walter
Chiara, Osvaldo
Ceccarelli, Graziano
Coccolini, Federico
Cicuttin, Enrico
D’Hondt, Mathieu
Di Saverio, Salomone
Diana, Michele
De Simone, Belinda
Espin-Basany, Eloy
Fichtner-Feigl, Stefan
Kashuk, Jeffry
Kouwenhoven, Ewout
Leppaniemi, Ari
Beghdadi, Nassiba
Memeo, Riccardo
Milone, Marco
Moore, Ernest
Peitzmann, Andrew
Pessaux, Patrick
Pikoulis, Manos
Pisano, Michele
Ris, Frederic
Sartelli, Massimo
Spinoglio, Giuseppe
Sugrue, Michael
Tan, Edward
Gavriilidis, Paschalis
Weber, Dieter
Kluger, Yoram
Catena, Fausto
author_facet de’Angelis, Nicola
Khan, Jim
Marchegiani, Francesco
Bianchi, Giorgio
Aisoni, Filippo
Alberti, Daniele
Ansaloni, Luca
Biffl, Walter
Chiara, Osvaldo
Ceccarelli, Graziano
Coccolini, Federico
Cicuttin, Enrico
D’Hondt, Mathieu
Di Saverio, Salomone
Diana, Michele
De Simone, Belinda
Espin-Basany, Eloy
Fichtner-Feigl, Stefan
Kashuk, Jeffry
Kouwenhoven, Ewout
Leppaniemi, Ari
Beghdadi, Nassiba
Memeo, Riccardo
Milone, Marco
Moore, Ernest
Peitzmann, Andrew
Pessaux, Patrick
Pikoulis, Manos
Pisano, Michele
Ris, Frederic
Sartelli, Massimo
Spinoglio, Giuseppe
Sugrue, Michael
Tan, Edward
Gavriilidis, Paschalis
Weber, Dieter
Kluger, Yoram
Catena, Fausto
author_sort de’Angelis, Nicola
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery. METHODS: This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus. RESULTS: Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations. CONCLUSIONS: Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8781145
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87811452022-01-21 Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper de’Angelis, Nicola Khan, Jim Marchegiani, Francesco Bianchi, Giorgio Aisoni, Filippo Alberti, Daniele Ansaloni, Luca Biffl, Walter Chiara, Osvaldo Ceccarelli, Graziano Coccolini, Federico Cicuttin, Enrico D’Hondt, Mathieu Di Saverio, Salomone Diana, Michele De Simone, Belinda Espin-Basany, Eloy Fichtner-Feigl, Stefan Kashuk, Jeffry Kouwenhoven, Ewout Leppaniemi, Ari Beghdadi, Nassiba Memeo, Riccardo Milone, Marco Moore, Ernest Peitzmann, Andrew Pessaux, Patrick Pikoulis, Manos Pisano, Michele Ris, Frederic Sartelli, Massimo Spinoglio, Giuseppe Sugrue, Michael Tan, Edward Gavriilidis, Paschalis Weber, Dieter Kluger, Yoram Catena, Fausto World J Emerg Surg Review BACKGROUND: Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery. METHODS: This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus. RESULTS: Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations. CONCLUSIONS: Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature. BioMed Central 2022-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8781145/ /pubmed/35057836 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00410-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
de’Angelis, Nicola
Khan, Jim
Marchegiani, Francesco
Bianchi, Giorgio
Aisoni, Filippo
Alberti, Daniele
Ansaloni, Luca
Biffl, Walter
Chiara, Osvaldo
Ceccarelli, Graziano
Coccolini, Federico
Cicuttin, Enrico
D’Hondt, Mathieu
Di Saverio, Salomone
Diana, Michele
De Simone, Belinda
Espin-Basany, Eloy
Fichtner-Feigl, Stefan
Kashuk, Jeffry
Kouwenhoven, Ewout
Leppaniemi, Ari
Beghdadi, Nassiba
Memeo, Riccardo
Milone, Marco
Moore, Ernest
Peitzmann, Andrew
Pessaux, Patrick
Pikoulis, Manos
Pisano, Michele
Ris, Frederic
Sartelli, Massimo
Spinoglio, Giuseppe
Sugrue, Michael
Tan, Edward
Gavriilidis, Paschalis
Weber, Dieter
Kluger, Yoram
Catena, Fausto
Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper
title Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper
title_full Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper
title_fullStr Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper
title_full_unstemmed Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper
title_short Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper
title_sort robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 wses position paper
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8781145/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35057836
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00410-6
work_keys_str_mv AT deangelisnicola roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT khanjim roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT marchegianifrancesco roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT bianchigiorgio roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT aisonifilippo roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT albertidaniele roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT ansaloniluca roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT bifflwalter roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT chiaraosvaldo roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT ceccarelligraziano roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT coccolinifederico roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT cicuttinenrico roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT dhondtmathieu roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT disaveriosalomone roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT dianamichele roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT desimonebelinda roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT espinbasanyeloy roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT fichtnerfeiglstefan roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT kashukjeffry roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT kouwenhovenewout roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT leppaniemiari roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT beghdadinassiba roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT memeoriccardo roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT milonemarco roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT mooreernest roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT peitzmannandrew roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT pessauxpatrick roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT pikoulismanos roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT pisanomichele roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT risfrederic roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT sartellimassimo roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT spinogliogiuseppe roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT sugruemichael roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT tanedward roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT gavriilidispaschalis roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT weberdieter roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT klugeryoram roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper
AT catenafausto roboticsurgeryinemergencysetting2021wsespositionpaper