INGRESAR
CREAR CUENTA
Artículos
Una década de optimización | 07 JUN 21

Duodenopancreatectomías robóticas mínimamente invasivas

Evolución y resultados de la duodenopancreatectomía robótica en la última década, información sobre la implementación exitosa.
1
Autor/a: Zureikat AH, Beane JD, Zenati MS, MD, Al Abbas AI, Boone BA, Moser J, Bartlett DL, Hogg ME, Zeh EJ III Ann Surg 2021; 273(5): 966-972
INDICE:  1. Texto principal | 2. Referencias bibliográficas
Referencias bibliográficas
  1. Kausch W. Carcinoma of the duodenal papilla and its radical removal. Beitrage Klinische Chir. 1912;78:439–486.
  2. Gagner M, Pomp A. Laparoscopic pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy.Surg Endosc. 1994;8:408–410.
  3. Kendrick ML, Cusati D. Total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: feasibility and outcome in an early experience. Arch Surg. 2010;145:19–23.
  4. Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P, et al. Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:222–230.
  5. Zureikat AH, Borrebach J, Pitt HA, et al. Minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in North America: an ACS-NSQIP analysis of predictors of conversion for laparoscopic and robotic pancreatectomy and hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:595–602.
  6. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg. 2003;138:777–784.
  7. Napoli N, Kauffmann EF, Palmeri M, et al. The learning curve in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Dig Surg. 2016;33:299–307.
  8. Nassour I, Wang SC, Porembka MR, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21: 1784–1792.
  9. Peng L, Lin S, Li Y, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:3085–3097.
  10. Zureikat AH, Nguyen KT, Bartlett DL, et al. Robotic-assisted major pancreatic resection and reconstruction. Arch Surg. 2011;146:256–261.
  11. Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, et al. 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg. 2013;258:554–559.
  12. Zureikat AH, Postlewait LM, Liu Y, et al. A multi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes of robotic and open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2016;264:640–649.
  13. Varley PR, Zenati MS, Klobuka A, et al. Does robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy improve outcomes in patients with high risk morphometric features compared to the open approach. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21:695–701.
  14. Girgis MD, Zenati MS, Steve J, et al. Robotic approach mitigates perioperative morbidity in obese patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:93–98.
  15. Beane JD, Zenati M, Hamad A, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection: outcomes and learning curve. Surgery. 2019;166:8–14.
  16. Kowalsky SJ, Zenati MS, Steve J, et al. A combination of robotic approach and ERAS pathway optimizes outcomes and cost for pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2019;269:1138–1145.
  17. Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S, et al. Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables. Ann Surg. 2016;264:482–491.
  18. Bassi C, Dervenis C, Butturini G, et al. Postoperative pancreatic fistula: an international study group (ISGPF) definition. Surgery. 2005;138:8–13.
  19. Wente MN, Bassi C, Dervenis C, et al. Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Surgery. 2007;142:761–768.
  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
  21. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2017: 2017.
  22. Tam V, Zenati M, Novak S, et al. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy biotissue curriculum has validity and improves technical performance for surgical oncology fellows. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:1057–1065.
  23. Rice MK, Zenati MS, Novak SM, et al. Crowdsourced assessment of inanimate biotissue drills: a valid and cost-effective way to evaluate surgical trainees. J Surg Educ. 2019;76:814–823.
  24. Al Abbas AI, Jung JP, Rice MK, et al. Methodology for developing an educational and research video library in minimally invasive surgery. J Surg Educ. 2019;76:745–755.
  25. Mark Knab L, Zenati MS, Khodakov A, et al. Evolution of a novel robotic training curriculum in a complex general surgical oncology fellowship. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3445–3452.
  26. Hogg ME, Tam V, Zenati M, et al. Mastery-based virtual reality robotic simulation curriculum: the first step toward operative robotic proficiency. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:47
« Página anterior
 

Comentarios

Para ver los comentarios de sus colegas o para expresar su opinión debe ingresar con su cuenta de IntraMed.

» Centro de Atención IntraMed
AAIP RNBD
Términos y condiciones de uso | Política de privacidad | Todos los derechos reservados | Copyright 1997-2024