2022
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2368
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robotic‐assisted diaphragmatic plication: Improving safety and effectiveness in the treatment of diaphragmatic paralysis

Abstract: Background: Diaphragmatic plication can be performed with various surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted plication. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent diaphragmatic plication from 2017 to 2021. Results:Eighteen patients underwent 20 operations, 11 of which were performed with robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and 9 with open transthoracic approach. RATS was associated with shorter operating time (… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since then, surgical plication has been established as a valid option for the treatment of symptoms associated with unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis (11,12). Minimally invasive diaphragmatic plication has also been shown to be a safe and effective strategy for the management of diaphragmatic paralysis (13) (14). Both of our patients showed subjective improvement of their breathing and quality of life, with an additional improvement of FEV1 and DLCO.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Since then, surgical plication has been established as a valid option for the treatment of symptoms associated with unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis (11,12). Minimally invasive diaphragmatic plication has also been shown to be a safe and effective strategy for the management of diaphragmatic paralysis (13) (14). Both of our patients showed subjective improvement of their breathing and quality of life, with an additional improvement of FEV1 and DLCO.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…As Lampridis et al [14], they report a shorter operative time due to greater ease during suturing, and an even better recovery. In our study, perioperative complications differed between RATS and VATS patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Studying children specifically, Slater et al [12] in 2008 and Xu et al [13] in 2020 have shown on two and nine patients, respectively, that robot-assisted diaphragmatic plication was feasible; just as in our five cases, they reported the same results pertaining to the efficacy of video-assisted surgery and without any additional complications. As Lampridis et al [14], they report a shorter operative time due to greater ease during suturing, and an even better recovery. In our study, perioperative complications differed between RATS and VATS patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The comparison of the preoperative and postoperative PFTs demonstrated significant improvement in FEV 1 % of 19.9 ± 22.0 ( P < 0.05) and the mean increase in FEV 1 /FVC of 5.7% ± 2.5% ( P = 0.225) without a significant difference between groups (FEV 1 % improvement, 22.1% ± 23.8% vs 10.9% ± 17.5%, for the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, respectively, P = 0.3661). Another retrospective single-center study comparing the robot-assisted thoracoscopic ( n = 11) and open transthoracic ( n = 9) approach was published recently by Lampridis et al 39 There were no conversions from robot-assisted to open approach. Two patients (10%) after robot-assisted surgery were represented with partial recurrence of diaphragmatic elevation and underwent further surgery with the open approach and diaphragmatic plication reinforcement with mesh.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%