Moreno-Portillo M, Valenzuela-Salazar C, Quiroz-Guadarrama CD, Pachecho-Gahbler C, Rojano-Rodríguez M

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 33
Paginas: 293-297
Archivo PDF: 227.78 Kb.

RESUMEN

La medicina ha experimentado un mayor avance científico y tecnológico en los últimos 50 años que en el resto de la historia de la humanidad.
Este artículo describe acontecimientos relevantes, revisa conceptos y ventajas, así como aplicaciones clínicas, resume resultados clínicos publicados y presenta algunas reflexiones personales sin pretender llegar a conclusiones dogmáticas sobre cirugía robótica.
La Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) define la cirugía robótica como un procedimiento quirúrgico realizado con tecnología que facilita la interacción entre el cirujano y el paciente. El objetivo del robot quirúrgico es corregir las deficiencias humanas y potenciar sus habilidades. La capacidad de repetir tareas con precisión y reproducibilidad ha sido la base de su éxito.
La tecnología robótica ofrece ventajas objetivas y medibles:
– Mejora la maniobrabilidad y capacidad física transoperatoria.
– Corrige vicios posturales y el temblor operatorio.
– Permite la percepción de profundidad (imagen en tres dimensiones).
– Magnifica los límites de fuerza y movimiento.
– Ofrece una plataforma para sensores, cámaras o instrumentos.
La cirugía endoscópica transformó conceptualmente la forma de hacer cirugía; sin embargo, en la última década la cirugía asistida por robot se ha convertido en el siguiente paradigma de nuestra era.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Wilson EB. The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg. 2009;98(2):125-9.

2. Najarian S, Fallahnezhad M, Afshari E. Advances in medical robotic systems with specific applications in surgery--a review. J Med Eng Technol. 2011;35 (1):19-33.

3. Herron DM, Marohn M, SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:313-25.

4. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Partin AW, et al. Telerobotic assisted laparoscopic surgery: initial laboratory and clinical experience. Urology. 1994;44:15-9.

5. Gofrit O, Mikahail A, Zorn K, et al. Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology. 2008;71:404-7.

6. Berguer R, Rab G, Abu-Ghaida H, et al. A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 1997;11: 139-42.

7. Berguer R, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res. 2006;134:87-92.

8. Johnston WR, Hollenbeck B, Wolf JJ. Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Endourol. 2005;19:377-81.

9. Lee E, Rafiq A, Merrell R, et al. Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1064-70.

10. Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JJ, et al. Robotic assistance- improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:377-82.

11. Faraz A, Payandeh S. Engineering approaches to mechanical and robotic design for minimally invasive surgery (MIS): Kluwer international series in engineering and computer science. Boston: Kluwer Academic; 2000. p. 183.

12. Stoianovici D, Webster R, Kavoussi L. Robotic tools for minimally invasive urologic surgery. En: Ramakumar S, Jarrett TW, Ramakumar R, eds. Complications of Urologic Laparoscopic Surgery: Recognition, Management and Prevention. Norway: Informa Healthcare Location of Publish; 2002. p. 1-17.

13. Volonté F, Buchs NC, Pugin F. Augmented reality to the rescue of the minimally invasive surgeon. The usefulness of the interposition of stereoscopic images in the Da Vinci robotic console. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. 2013;9:e34-8.

14. Taylor R, Stulberg D. Excerpts from the final report for the Second International Workshop on Robotics and Computer Assisted Medical Interventions. Comput Aided Surg. 1997;2:78-85.

15. Sackier Jm, Wang Y. Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. From concept to development. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:63-6.

16. Sánchez FM, Millan RF, Bayarri JS, et al. Historia de la robótica: de Arquitas de Tarento al robot Da Vinci. Parte I. Actas Urol Esp. 2007; 31(2):69-76.

17. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Rubino F, et al. Transcontinental Robot Assisted Remote Telesurgery: Feasibility and Potential Applications. Ann Surg. 2002;235(4):487-92.

18. Ballantyne GH. The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotic and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002;12:1-5.

19. Nikiteas N, Roukos D, Kouraklis G. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery perspectives for tailoring and optimal surgical option. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011;8(3)295-8.

20. Satava RM. Emerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. Arch Surg. 1999;134:1197-2002.

21. Galvani C, Horgan S. Robots en cirugía general: presente y futuro. Cir Esp. 2005;78:138-47.

22. Müller-Stitch BP, Reiter MA, Wente MN, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: short-term outcome of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1800-5.

23. Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV, et al. Robotic-assisted Heller myotomy versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy for the treatment of achalasia: multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9:1020-30.

24. Dunn DH, Johnson EM, Morphew JA, Dilworth HP, Krueguer JL, Banerji N. Robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy: a 3-year singlecenter experience. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26(2):159-66.

25. Tieu K, Allison N, Snyder B, Wilson T, Toder M, Wilson EB. Robotic-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: updated from 2 high-volume centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(2):284-8.

26. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F, et al. Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery. 2011;149:29-39.

27. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1646-57.

28. Kwak JM, Kim SH, Kim J, Son DN, Baek SJ, Cho JS. Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(2):151-6.

29. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):1-15.

30. Martínez-Maestre MA, Gambadauro P, González-Cejudo C, et al. Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy With and Without Robotic Assistance: A Prospective Controlled Study. Surg Innov. 2013. [Epub ahead of print].

31. Suri RM, Burkhart HM, Daly RC, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: Establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(5):970-9.

32. Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR, et al. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol. 2013;189(1):283-7.

33. Richmon JD, Quon H, Gourin CG. The effect of transoral robotic surgery on short-term outcomes and cost of care after oropharyngeal cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. 2013. [Epub ahead of print].