EVOLUTION OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF OUTCOMES IN MAJOR SURGICAL SPECIALTIES
Main Article Content
Keywords
Robotic-assisted surgery, Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), Surgical precision, open surgery (OS) etc.
Abstract
Robotic assisted surgery has changed modern surgical practice, increasing precision and decreasing invasiveness. In this systematic review, evaluate its evolution focusing on perioperative outcomes across major surgical specialties. The greater blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications that robotic systems show compared to open surgery (OS) make them representative of a superior form of treatment. Overall, however, remain less conclusive than minimally invasive surgery (MIS) because the complication rates are similar and due to longer operative times. High costs, steep learning curves, and limited accessible pose key challenges in the uptake. These systems are candidates for improvement by emerging technologies, like artificial intelligence (AI), haptic feedback, and augmented reality. Overcoming these technical challenges will require cost effective, efficient solutions to bring robotic surgery further and to integrate into healthcare in an equitable way.
References
2. Tan, A., Ashrafian, H., Scott, A.J., Mason, S.E., Harling, L., Athanasiou, T. and Darzi, A., 2016. Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surgical endoscopy, 30, pp.4330-4352.
3. Crawford, D.L. and Dwyer, A.M., 2018. Evolution and literature review of robotic general surgery resident training 2002–2018. Updates in Surgery, 70, pp.363-368.
4. Moglia, A., Ferrari, V., Morelli, L., Ferrari, M., Mosca, F. and Cuschieri, A., 2016. A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. European urology, 69(6), pp.1065-1080.
5. Sivaraman, A., Sanchez-Salas, R., Prapotnich, D., Barret, E., Mombet, A., Cathala, N., Rozet, F., Galiano, M. and Cathelineau, X., 2015. Robotics in urological surgery: evolution, current status and future perspectives. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition), 39(7), pp.435-441.
6. Schreuder, H.W., Wolswijk, R., Zweemer, R.P., Schijven, M.P. and Verheijen, R.H., 2012. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 119(2), pp.137-149.
7. Shah, J., Vyas, A. and Vyas, D., 2014. The history of robotics in surgical specialties. American journal of robotic surgery, 1(1), pp.12-20.
8. Halabi, W.J., Kang, C.Y., Jafari, M.D., Nguyen, V.Q., Carmichael, J.C., Mills, S., Stamos, M.J. and Pigazzi, A., 2013. Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World journal of surgery, 37, pp.2782-2790.
9. Autorino, R., Kaouk, J.H., Stolzenburg, J.U., Gill, I.S., Mottrie, A., Tewari, A. and Cadeddu, J.A., 2013. Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. European urology, 63(2), pp.266-280.
10. Karthik, K., Colegate-Stone, T., Dasgupta, P., Tavakkolizadeh, A. and Sinha, J., 2015. Robotic surgery in trauma and orthopaedics: a systematic review. The bone & joint journal, 97(3), pp.292-299.
11. Cundy, T.P., Harley, S.J., Marcus, H.J., Hughes-Hallett, A. and Khurana, S., 2018. Global trends in paediatric robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric and progressive scholarly acceptance analysis. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 12, pp.109-115.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr Gulshan Kumar
Associate Professor SKS Hospital Medical College and Research Centre
Dr Vikram Singh yadav
Assistant Professor SKS Hospital Medical College and Research Centre