Research ExplorerPublicationsLower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Lapar...

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Standard

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures. / Baukloh, Julia-Kristin; Perez, Daniel; Reeh, Matthias; Biebl, Matthias; Izbicki, Jakob R; Pratschke, Johann; Aigner, Felix.

In: VISC MED, Vol. 34, No. 1, 02.2018, p. 16-22.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Review article › Research

Harvard

Baukloh, J-K, Perez, D, Reeh, M, Biebl, M, Izbicki, JR, Pratschke, J & Aigner, F 2018, 'Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures', VISC MED, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486008

APA

Baukloh, J-K., Perez, D., Reeh, M., Biebl, M., Izbicki, J. R., Pratschke, J., & Aigner, F. (2018). Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures. VISC MED, 34(1), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486008

Vancouver

Baukloh J-K, Perez D, Reeh M, Biebl M, Izbicki JR, Pratschke J et al. Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures. VISC MED. 2018 Feb;34(1):16-22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000486008

Bibtex

@article{bcdc01e10ac1470d82a3b06f1493bc88,
title = "Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures",
abstract = "Introduction: For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.Results: 69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.Conclusion: Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.",
keywords = "Journal Article, Review",
author = "Julia-Kristin Baukloh and Daniel Perez and Matthias Reeh and Matthias Biebl and Izbicki, {Jakob R} and Johann Pratschke and Felix Aigner",
year = "2018",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1159/000486008",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "16--22",
journal = "VISC MED",
issn = "2297-4725",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

AU - Baukloh, Julia-Kristin

AU - Perez, Daniel

AU - Reeh, Matthias

AU - Biebl, Matthias

AU - Izbicki, Jakob R

AU - Pratschke, Johann

AU - Aigner, Felix

PY - 2018/2

Y1 - 2018/2

N2 - Introduction: For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.Results: 69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.Conclusion: Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

AB - Introduction: For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.Results: 69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.Conclusion: Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

KW - Journal Article

KW - Review

U2 - 10.1159/000486008

DO - 10.1159/000486008

M3 - SCORING: Review article

C2 - 29594165

VL - 34

SP - 16

EP - 22

JO - VISC MED

JF - VISC MED

SN - 2297-4725

IS - 1

ER -