3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Advances and Trends in Pediatric Minimally Invasive Surgery

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As many meta-analyses comparing pediatric minimally invasive to open surgery can be found in the literature, the aim of this review is to summarize the current state of minimally invasive pediatric surgery and specifically focus on the trends and developments which we expect in the upcoming years. Print and electronic databases were systematically searched for specific keywords, and cross-link searches with references found in the literature were added. Full-text articles were obtained, and eligibility criteria were applied independently. Pediatric minimally invasive surgery is a wide field, ranging from minimally invasive fetal surgery over microlaparoscopy in newborns to robotic surgery in adolescents. New techniques and devices, like natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), single-incision and endoscopic surgery, as well as the artificial uterus as a backup for surgery in preterm fetuses, all contribute to the development of less invasive procedures for children. In spite of all promising technical developments which will definitely change the way pediatric surgeons will perform minimally invasive procedures in the upcoming years, one must bear in mind that only hard data of prospective randomized controlled and double-blind trials can validate whether these techniques and devices really improve the surgical outcome of our patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 159

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Endoscopic appendectomy.

             K. Semm (1983)
            These newly developed endoscopic methods in gynaecology for haemostasis during surgical pelviscopy (Endocoagulation Roeder-loop ligation, endoligature, endo-suture with intra- and extracorporeal knotting) make it possible to carry out appendectomy by endoscopy for any of the following indications: Postoperative adhesion of the appendix especially in "sterility" patients, elongated appendix extending into the small pelvis, endometriosis of the appendix, subacute and chronic appendicitis. The instrument-set employed in this method permits the performance of all the usual classical operative steps (purse-string suture, and Z-suture acc. to McBurney and Sprengel). The point for resection has to be sterilized over 20-30 sec. at 212 degrees F using the crocodile forceps (endocoagulation procedure) before division and extraction of the appendix is effected.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

              BACKGROUND Minimally invasive surgery was adopted as an alternative to laparotomy (open surgery) for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer before high-quality evidence regarding its effect on survival was available. We sought to determine the effect of minimally invasive surgery on all-cause mortality among women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. METHODS We performed a cohort study involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for stage IA2 or IB1 cervical cancer during the 2010–2013 period at Commission on Cancer–accredited hospitals in the United States. The study used inverse probability of treatment propensity-score weighting. We also conducted an interrupted time-series analysis involving women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer during the 2000–2010 period, using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. RESULTS In the primary analysis, 1225 of 2461 women (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive surgery. Women treated with minimally invasive surgery were more often white, privately insured, and from ZIP Codes with higher socioeconomic status, had smaller, lower-grade tumors, and were more likely to have received a diagnosis later in the study period than women who underwent open surgery. Over a median follow-up of 45 months, the 4-year mortality was 9.1% among women who underwent minimally invasive surgery and 5.3% among those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22 to 2.22; P = 0.002 by the log-rank test). Before the adoption of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (i.e., in the 2000–2006 period), the 4-year relative survival rate among women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer remained stable (annual percentage change, 0.3%; 95% CI, −0.1 to 0.6). The adoption of minimally invasive surgery coincided with a decline in the 4-year relative survival rate of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.4) per year after 2006 (P = 0.01 for change of trend). CONCLUSIONS In an epidemiologic study, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with shorter overall survival than open surgery among women with stage IA2 or IB1 cervical carcinoma. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                10 December 2020
                December 2020
                : 9
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Visceral, Thoracic, Transplant and Pediatric Surgery, UKSH University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein Kiel Campus, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany; andreas.meinzer@ 123456uksh.de (A.M.); Jonas.baastrup@ 123456uksh.de (J.B.); katja.reischig@ 123456uksh.de (K.R.); roberts.meiksans@ 123456uksh.de (R.M.)
                [2 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UKSH University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein Kiel Campus, Arnold-Heller-Strasse 3, 24105 Kiel, Germany; Ibrahim.alkatout@ 123456uksh.de
                [3 ]Department of Pediatric Surgery, Ostschweizer Children’s Hospital, Claudiusstrasse 6, 9006 St. Gallen, Switzerland; thomas.krebs@ 123456kispisg.ch
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: robert.bergholz@ 123456uksh.de ; Tel.: +49-0-431-500-20409
                Article
                jcm-09-03999
                10.3390/jcm9123999
                7764454
                33321836
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                Categories
                Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article