Five millimetre-instruments in paediatric robotic surgery: Advantages and shortcomings

Gloria Pelizzo, Ghassan Nakib, Piero Romano, Luigi Avolio, Simonetta Mencherini, Elisa Zambaiti, Alessandro Raffaele, Timothée Stoll, Nicolò Mineo, Valeria Calcaterra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: The study was designed to assess the utility and controversies surrounding the usage of 5-mm instruments in paediatric robotic surgery. Adequate, delicate instruments for surgery in very narrow spaces are still lacking. Material and methods: Thirty children underwent elective abdominal robotic surgery. Working sites, assembly and operative time, hospital stay, advantages, complications and shortcomings are reported. Results: Interventions were performed in the following anatomical sites: 11 upper abdominal, nine pelvic, ten renal procedures. The majority of procedures required two operative trocars. A 2-3 mm accessory port was necessary for operations in the renal area and upper abdomen. The ports had to be placed at least 3 cm from the costal margins and superior iliac spines and at an angle of at least 130° with respect to the camera trocar. This configuration allowed intra-corporal knotting, vessel ligation and dissection with instruments in the inverted position. Operative times and hospital stays were similar to those reported for 8 mm-instruments. Conclusion: The use of 5-mm instruments was advantageous in renal and pelvic sites. The benefits in upper abdominal surgery need further evaluation, particularly in patients weighing

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)148-153
Number of pages6
JournalMinimally Invasive Therapy and Allied Technologies
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2015

Keywords

  • Instruments
  • Paediatric
  • Robotic-Assisted surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Five millimetre-instruments in paediatric robotic surgery: Advantages and shortcomings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this