Técnicas Minimamente Invasivas em Cirurgia Geral: Benefícios, Limitações e Futuras Perspectivas.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n5p3025-3041Keywords:
Cirurgia minimamente invasiva, laparoscopia, cirurgia robótica, endoscopia, inovação tecnológicaAbstract
General surgery has been undergoing a revolution with the introduction and refinement of minimally invasive techniques (MITs), which are distinguished by offering lower postoperative morbidity and faster recovery when compared to conventional open techniques. This article reviews the current state, benefits, limitations, and future perspectives of MITs in general surgery, with an emphasis on laparoscopy, robotic surgery, and endoscopy. A detailed search strategy was carried out in academic databases, focusing on studies that report the clinical outcomes of MITs. The review synthesizes findings from relevant studies, assessing the efficacy of MITs in different clinical contexts. Comprehensive discussions are provided on the outcomes, with attention to current limitations, such as the learning curve and associated costs, and recommendations for future research are offered. Notably, the analysis of studies demonstrates that laparoscopy continues to be the gold standard for many procedures, while robotic surgery is growing, although its costs remain a limiting factor. Endoscopy has proven particularly promising for diagnostic and therapeutic gastrointestinal procedures. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for ongoing training, technological development, and cost-benefit assessments to maximize the potential of MITs.
Downloads
References
ANVARI, M., et al. Impact of robotic telepresence on surgical training: A community hospital experience. Surgical Endoscopy, 19(2), 281-287 (2005).
BARBASH, G. I., et al. New technology and health care costs: The case of robot-assisted surgery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(8), 701-704 (2010).
BODNER, J., et al. The da Vinci Surgical System: a review of its specifications, capabilities, and training approaches. Archives of Surgery, 139(7), 730-737 (2004).
BRIDGES, M., DIAMOND, D.L. The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. The American Journal of Surgery, 199(1), 105-110 (2010).
CAMPOS, L. H., et al. Robotic surgery: history, current applications, and future directions. Current Surgery Reports, 68(9), 297-304 (2010).
DIANA, M., et al. Enhanced-reality video-assisted surgery: Navigating the future of laparoscopy? World Journal of Gastroenterology, 20(44), 16783-16791 (2014).
FLESHMAN, J., et al. Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection of Stage II or III Rectal Cancer on Pathologic Outcomes: The ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 314(13), 1346-1355 (2019).
GETTMAN, M. T., et al. Consensus statement on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: Heralding a new era in urology? European Urology, 59(4), (2011).
GUTHART, G. S., et al. The Intuitive telesurgery system: Overview and application. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 618-621 (2000).
HOLCOMB, G. W. III, OSTLIE, D. J., RENTEA, R. M. The impact of MIS on pediatric surgery: A general overview. European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 28(1), 1-9 (2018).
IDDAN, G., MERON, G., GLUKHOVSKY, A., SWAIN, P. Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature, 405(6785), 417 (2000).
JAYNE, D., et al. Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 318(16), 1569-1580 (2017).
JOSEPH, R. A., SALAS, N., JOHNSON, C. Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS): A Primer. Diagnostics, 7(4), 56 (2017).
KALLENBACH, T., et al. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surgical Oncology, 20(3), 189-201 (2014).
KENNGOTT, H. G., et al. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surgical Oncology, 20(3), 189-201 (2014).
LANFRANCO, A. R., et al. Robotic surgery: A current perspective. Annals of Surgery, 239(1), 14-21 (2004).
LENDVAY, T. S., et al. VR robotic surgery: Randomized blinded study of the dV-Trainer robotic simulator. Surgical Endoscopy, 27(7), 2580-2591 (2013).
MARECIK, S. J., et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the use of a robotic camera assistant (ViKY) for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 31(8), 3175-3182 (2017).
MOORTHY, K., et al. Technical skills and training in robotic surgery. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1(4), 97-104 (2003).
OSTLIE, D. J., ST PETER, S. D. The progression of pediatric laparoscopy and the future. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery, 22(3), 164-168 (2013).
PALTER, V., et al. Personalized Simulation-Based Training to Acquire Laparoscopic Suturing Skills. Annals of Surgery, 253(3), 592-599 (2011).
PATEL, V. R., et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy: Outcomes of a contemporary series. European Urology, 51(3), 609-614 (2007).
PATLER, V., et al. Review of Emerging Surgical Robotic Technology. Surgical Endoscopy, 32(4), 1636-1655 (2018).
PERRETTA, S., et al. The Future of Laparoscopic Surgery. Annals of Surgery, 252(3), 495-499 (2010).
PERRENOT, C., et al. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surgical Endoscopy, 26(9), 2587-2593 (2012).
PIOCHE, M., et al. Endomicroscopy: Technical advancements and clinical applications. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 26(2), 283-301 (2016).
PONSKY, J. L., CHERULLO, E. E. The role of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of abdominal pain syndromes. Surgical Endoscopy, 15(10), 1117-1119 (2001).
SATAVA, R. M. Surgical robotics: The early chronicles of a new vision. Surgical Endoscopy, 16(12), 1643-1650 (2002).
SRIVASTAVA, M. C., et al. Robotic cardiac surgery: A review of current practice and the role of simulation in training. Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 26(1), 1-9 (2011).
TORRES-LANDA, S., TALAMAS, H. R. Health disparities in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: The influence of patients' socio-economic status and race. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 28(3), 286-291 (2018).
VAN GOSSUM, A., MUNOZ-NAVAS, M., FERNANDEZ-URIEN, I., et al. Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 361(3), 264-270 (2009).
VETTORETTO, N., SILECCHIA, G., DE STEFANO, S. M., et al. Consensus conference statement on the general use of near-infrared fluorescence imaging and indocyanine green guided surgery: results of a modified Delphi study. Surgical Endoscopy, 25(7), 2044-2051 (2011).
WALLACE, M. B., KIESSLICH, R., GOETZ, M., et al. The safety of intravenous fluorescein for confocal laser endomicroscopy in the gastrointestinal tract. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 27(7), 543-552 (2008).
WANG, Y., ZHAO, GH., ZHOU, J., et al. Learning Curve and Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy: A Cumulative Sum Analysis. Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition, 8(4), 329-337 (2019).
SONN, G. A., JONES, S. N., TARIN, T. V. Optical biopsy of human bladder neoplasia with in vivo confocal laser endomicroscopy. The Journal of Urology, 182(4), 1299-1305 (2009).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Julia Chilante Ghellere, Pedro Henrique Pedrini de Oliveira, Emerson Carvalho de Aguiar, Hugo Juliani de Oliveira Pereira, Bruna Torrezan Marin, Ana Carolina Shinkawa Fernandes, Ana Elisa Franca Almeida, Laura Caroline Lippert, Luís Claudio Montes Silva, Filipe Duarte Tanuri, Pedro Alves Queiroz Vasconcelos, Ana Flávia Lobato Ferreira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors are copyright holders under a CCBY 4.0 license.
