PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Robotic Repair of Giant Paraesophageal Hernias 
This report suggests that robotic repair of giant para-esophageal hernia has a lower recurrence rate than standard laparoscopic methods, but complications and mortality are similar to standard laparoscopic approaches.
Background and Objectives:
Giant paraesophageal hernia accounts for 5% of all hiatal hernias, and it is commonly seen in elderly patients with comorbidities. Some series report complication rates up to 28%, recurrence rates between 10% and 25%, and a mortality rate close to 2%. Recently, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has shown equivocal benefits when used for elective surgeries, whereas for complex procedures, the benefits appear to be clearer. The purpose of this study is to present our preliminary experience in robotic giant paraesophageal hernia repair.
Methods:
We retrospectively collected data from patients who had a diagnosis of giant paraesophageal hernia and underwent a paraesophageal hernia repair with the da Vinci Surgical System.
Results:
Nineteen patients (12 women [63.1%]) underwent surgery for giant paraesophageal hernia at our center. The mean age was 70.4 ± 13.9 years (range, 40–97 years). The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 2.15. The mean surgical time and hospital length of stay were 184.5 ± 96.2 minutes (range, 96–395 minutes) and 4.3 days (range, 2–22 days), respectively. Nissen fundoplications were performed in 3 cases (15.7%), and 16 patients (84.2%) had mesh placed. Six patients (31.5%) presented with gastric volvulus, and 2 patients had other herniated viscera (colon and duodenum). There were 2 surgery-related complications (10.5%) (1 dysphagia that required dilatation and 1 pleural injury) and 1 conversion to open repair (partial gastric resection). No recurrences or deaths were observed in this series.
Conclusion:
In our experience robotic giant paraesophageal hernia repair is not different from the laparoscopic approach in terms of complications and mortality rate, but it may be associated with lower recurrence rates. However, larger series with longer follow-up are necessary to further substantiate our results.
doi:10.4293/108680813X13654754534594
PMCID: PMC3866061  PMID: 24398199
Paraesophageal; Giant; Robotic; Surgery; Foregut; Hiatal
2.  Improved access and visibility during stapling of the ultra-low rectum: a comparative human cadaver study between two curved staplers 
Background
The purpose of this study was to compare in human cadavers the applicability of a commonly used stapling device, the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) to a newly released, curved stapler, the Endo GIA™ Radial Reload with Tri-Staple™ Technology (RR) (Covidien, New Haven, CT)
Methods
Four experienced surgeons performed deep pelvic dissection with total mesorectal excision (TME) of the rectum in twelve randomized male cadavers. Both stapling devices were applied to the ultra-low rectum in coronal and sagittal configurations. Extensive measurements were recorded of anatomic landmarks for each cadaver pelvis along with various aspects of access, visibility, and ease of placement for each device.
Results
The RR reached significantly lower into the pelvis in both the coronal and sagittal positions compared to the CC. The median distance from the pelvic floor was 1.0 cm compared to 2.0 cm in the coronal position, and 1.0 cm versus 3.3 cm placed sagitally, p < 0.0001. Surgeons gave a higher visibility rating with less visual impediment in the sagittal plane using the RR Stapler. Impediment of visibility occurred in only 10% (5/48) of RR applications in the coronal position, compared to a rate of 48% (23/48) using the CC, p = 0.0002.
Conclusions
The RR device performed significantly better when compared to the CC stapler in regards to placing the stapler further into the deep pelvis and closer to the pelvic floor, while causing less obstructing of visualization.
doi:10.1186/1750-1164-6-11
PMCID: PMC3539907  PMID: 23148602
3.  Stapler access and visibility in the deep pelvis: A comparative human cadaver study between a computerized right angle linear cutter versus a curved cutting stapler 
Purpose
Distal rectal stapling is often challenging because of limited space and visibility. We compared two stapling devices in the distal rectum in a cadaver study: the iDrive™ right angle linear cutter (RALC) (Covidien, New Haven, CT) and the CONTOUR® curved cutter (CC) (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH).
Methods
Twelve male cadavers underwent pelvic dissection by 4 surgeons. After rectal mobilization as in a total mesorectal excision, the staplers were applied to the rectum as deep as possible in both the coronal and sagittal positions. The distance from the pelvic floor was measured for each application. A questionnaire rated the visibility and access of the stapling devices. Measurements were taken between pelvic landmarks to see what anatomic factors hinder the placement of a distal rectal stapler.
Results
The median (range) distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor in the coronal position for the RALC was 1.0 cm (0-4.0) vs. 2.0 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p = 0.003. In the sagittal position, the median distance was 1.6 cm (0-3.5) for the RALC and 3.3 cm (0-5.0) for the CC, p < 0.0001. The RALC scored better than the CC in respect to: 1. interference by the symphysis pubis, 2. number of stapler readjustments, 3. ease of placement in the pelvis, 4. impediment of visibility, 5. ability to hold and retain tissue, 6. visibility rating, and 7. access in the pelvis. A shorter distance between the tip of the coccyx and the pubic symphysis correlated with a longer distance of the stapler from the pelvic floor (p = 0.002).
Conclusions
The RALC is superior to the CC in terms of access, visibility, and ease of placement in the deep pelvis. This could provide important clinical benefit to both patient and surgeon during difficult rectal surgery.
doi:10.1186/1750-1164-5-7
PMCID: PMC3189175  PMID: 21871120

Results 1-3 (3)