Operative procedures supported with robotics systems and available endoscope procedures in operative gynecology

• Autorzy: Stangel-Wójcikiewicz K. , Basta A. , Piwowar M. , Petko M. , Karpiel G. , Panek D. , Ludwin I. , Jach R.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/bams-2014-0008

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Minimally invasive surgery revolutionized operative procedures in the last 20 years. Much of the progress in minimally invasive surgery can be attributed to the development of robot-based systems. The most apparent changes are found in laparoscopy procedures. Procedures in which only small skin incisions are made have revolutionized operating theaters. The learning curve, although long in itself, allows for the development of procedures with reduced perioperative risk (i.e., bleeding, pain) or shorter postoperative period. Convalescence after endoscopy procedures is significantly shorter compared with classic laparotomy. However, certain limitations apply to laparoscopy. Apart from the long learning curve, movements executed with long and rigid tools cannot strictly translate the precision of an operator’s hand. The body position of the surgeon is often forced by the reach of the endoscope instrument. It is related to a significant physical load of personnel, especially during long operating procedures. For this reason, some therapeutic procedures are still executed using the laparotomy approach.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

e-learning; gynecology; robotic surgery

• Wydawca: Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum ; Index Copernicus Sp. z o.o.
• Czasopismo: Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: Vol. 10, no. 3
• Strony: 139--149
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 23 poz., rys., zdj.

Twórcy

autor

Stangel-Wójcikiewicz K.

• Department of Gynecology and Oncology, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, ul. Kopernika 23, 31-501 Kraków, Poland

autor

Basta A.

• Department of Gynecology and Oncology, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

autor

Piwowar M.

• Department of Bioinformatics and Telemedicine, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

autor

Petko M.

• Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland

autor

Karpiel G.

• Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland

autor

Panek D.

• Department of Measurement and Electronics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland

autor

Ludwin I.

• Department of Gynecology and Oncology, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

autor

Jach R.

• Department of Gynecology and Oncology, Medical College, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Fagotti A, Petrillo M, Rossitto C, Scambia G. Standardized training programmes for advanced laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013;25:327–31.
• 2. Hibner M, Marianowski P, Szymusik I, Wielgoś M. Zastosowanie robotów w chirurgii ginekologicznej. Ginekol Pol 2012;83: 934–8.
• 3. O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA. Robot-assisted surgery: impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1163–73.
• 4. Plowright LN, Duggal B, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Endoscopic transurethral resection of urethral mesh erosion with the use of a pediatric nasal speculum. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:440–3.
• 5. Stangel-Wojcikiewicz K, Jarocha D, Piwowar M, Jach R, Uhl T, Basta A, et al. Autologous muscle-derived cells for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a 2-year follow-up of a polish investigation. Neurourol Urodyn 2014;33:324–30.
• 6. Petko M. Wybrane metody projektowania mechatronicznego. Krakow, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Technologii Eksploatacji – PIB, Radom, 2008.
• 7. Yu T, Luo J, Singhal A, Ahuja N, editors. Shape regularized active contour based on dynamic programming for anatomical structure segmentation. In: Proc SPIE 5747, Medical Imaging 2005: Image Processing, 2005.
• 8. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2006. Available at: http://medical.nema.org/.
• 9. Batce KJ. Finite element procedures. Cambridge, MA: Klaus-Jürgen Bathe, 2006.
• 10. Petko M, Karpiel G, editors. Hardware/software co-design of control algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, 2006:2156–61.
• 11. Petko M, Gac K, Karpiel G, Ochoński J, editors. Acceleration of parallel robot trajectory generation in FPGA. In: 2013 8th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), 19–21 June, 2013:1123–8.
• 12. Bateman J, Allen ME, Kidd J, Parsons N, Davies D. Virtual patients design and its effect on clinical reasoning and student experience: a protocol for a randomised factorial multi-centre study. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:62.
• 13. Oliven A, Nave R, Hasson-Gilad DR, Baruch A. Medical students’ views on the use of virtual patients for teaching and assessment of clinical knowledge and reasoning. Harefuah 2013;152: 257–61.
• 14. Pataki C, Pato MT, Sugar J, Rizzo AS, Parsons TD, George C, et al. Virtual patients as novel teaching tools in psychiatry. Acad Psychiatry 2012;36:398–400.
• 15. Kononowicz A, Krawczyk P, Cebula G, Dembkowska M, Drab E, Frączek B, et al. Effects of introducing a voluntary virtual patient module to a basic life support with an automated external defibrillator course: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:41.
• 16. Piwowar M, Kułaga T, Guratowska M, Stachoń A, Kononowicz A. Genomic virtual patients – the learning way not only for medical doctor. Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst 2010;6:161.
• 17. Swan K, Advincula AP. Advances in urogynaecological robotic surgery. Br J Urol 2011;108:1024–7.
• 18. Matthews CA. The promise of robotics in urogynecology. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1177–8.
• 19. Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006;191:555–60.
• 20. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;150:92–6.
• 21. Sert MB, Eraker R. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynaecological oncology; initial experience at Oslo Radium Hospital and 16 months follow-up. Int J Med Robot 2009;5:410–4.
• 22. Toglia MR. What is the role of innovative minimally invasive surgery in today’s medicine? Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1175–6.
• 23. Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF. Robotic surgery in gynaecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011;2011:852061.