A porcine model for robotic training harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle

Louis, Véronique Leh; Chih-Sheng, L.; Chevallier, D.; Selber, Jesse C.; Xavier, Fred; Liverneaux, P.

doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2017.11.010

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Louis et al. 9 used a surgical robot to perform rectus abdominis tissue excision followed by pelvic tissue reconstruction. The postoperative results were satisfactory and the operation time was less than 1 h. The use of surgical robot for surgeries on rectus abdominis and reconstruction can completely preserve the anterior rectus sheath, reduce abdominal wall spasm, and avoid the postoperative intestinal dysfunction and postoperative sexual dysfunction.…”

Section: Application Of Surgical Robot In Tissue Repair and Reconstrumentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current surgical practices of robotic-assisted tissue repair and reconstruction

Wang

Jia

2019

Chinese Journal of Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper systematically reviewed and analyzed the recent publications of robotic-assisted surgeries in the field of tissue repair and reconstruction. Surgical robots can elevate skin flap more accurately and shorten the time of tissue harvest. In addition, robotic-assisted surgery has the advantage of minimal tissue trauma and thus forms minimal scar. The utilization of surgical robots reduces the occurrence of complications after oral radical tumor resection while achieving cosmetic sutures. Robotic-assisted radical mastectomy could radically remove invasive breast cancer lesions and achieve breast reconstruction in the first stage through the small incisions in the operation areas. Surgical robots enable precise microvascular anastomosis and reduce tissue edema in the surgical field. Robotic-assisted technology can help appropriately locate the target tissues at different angles during sinus and skull base surgeries and accurately place tissues during urethroplasty. The robotic-assisted technology provides a new platform for surgical innovation in the field of tissue repair and reconstruction. However, the uncertainty in the survival rate after tumor radical surgery, the increase of operating time, and the high costs are barriers for its clinical application in tissue repair and reconstructive surgery. Nevertheless, robotic-assisted technology has already demonstrated an impact on the field of tissue repair and reconstruction in a meaningful way.

show abstract

Section: Application Of Surgical Robot In Tissue Repair and Reconstrumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, robotic-assisted surgery can overcome the above shortcomings. Louis et al 9 . used a surgical robot to perform rectus abdominis tissue excision followed by pelvic tissue reconstruction.…”

Section: Application Of Surgical Robot In Tissue Repair and Reconstrumentioning

confidence: 99%

Current surgical practices of robotic-assisted tissue repair and reconstruction

Wang

Jia

2019

Chinese Journal of Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical, Preclinical, and Educational Applications of Robotic‐Assisted Flap Reconstruction and Microsurgery: A Systematic Review

Awad,

Bollen,

Reed

et al. 2024

Microsurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMicrosurgery and super‐microsurgery allow for highly technical reconstructive surgeries to be performed, with repairs of anatomical areas of less than 1 mm. Robotic‐assisted surgery might allow for further advances within microsurgery, providing higher precision, accuracy, and scope to operate in previously inaccessible anatomical areas. However, robotics is not well‐established within this field.We provide a summary of the clinical and preclinical uses of robotics within flap reconstruction and microsurgery, educational models, and the barriers to widespread implementation.MethodsA systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses was conducted of PubMed, Medline, and Embase. Preclinical, educational, and clinical articles were included.ResultsOne thousand five hundred and forty‐two articles were screened; 87 articles met the inclusion criteria across flap harvest, flap/vessel pedicle dissection, vascular anastomosis, and nerve repair. The literature presents several potential benefits to the surgeon and patient such as high cosmetic satisfaction, minimally invasive access with reduced scarring (flap harvest), and low complication rates. Lack of haptic feedback was reported by authors to not impede the ability to perform vessel anastomosis; however, this required further investigation. A steep learning curve was identified, particularly for microsurgeons embarking upon robotic‐assisted surgery.ConclusionRobotic‐assisted surgery can potentially enhance microsurgery and flap reconstruction, with feasibility demonstrated within this review, up to anastomosis of 0.4 mm in diameter. However, there is a lack of sufficiently powered comparative studies, required to strengthen this statement. To increase accessibility to robotic surgery for plastic and reconstructive surgeons, educational opportunities must be developed with standardized assessment of skill acquisition.

show abstract