Browsing by Author "De Sio, M"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Low-cost reusable instrumentation for laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy: assessment in a porcine modelPublication . Autorino, R; Kim, FJ; Rane, A; De Sio, M; Stein, RJ; Micali, S; Correia-Pinto, J; Kaouk, JH; Lima, EPURPOSE: To test different sets of prebent instruments and a new reusable access device for laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three surgeons with previous experience in LESS performed 12 nephrectomies in six pigs. In all procedures, a multichannel access device (X-CONE) and a 5-mm extra-long telescope were used. Four sets of prebent instruments with different profiles (S-portal) were tested: Standard (one straight scissors and one curved grasper), Cuschieri, Carus, and Leroy set (each of them consisting of two curved instruments with different configurations). Assessment was performed based on both objective (procedure time; time to manage the pedicle; time to free kidney) and subjective parameters (entry/exit of instruments; triangulation; dissection up/down; dissection lateral; retraction; interdependence). The subjective assessment tool used was a Likert type scale (1 = easy to 5 = prohibitive). The access device was assessed by using objective (time to complete insertion of device after skin incision) and subjective (significant air leakage, movement constraint) parameters. RESULTS: Time to insertion of the X-CONE was <1 minute in all the cases. Surgeons reported significant insufflant leakage in 58% of cases. The procedure was completed in 10/12 (83%) cases. Mean operative time was 8.3 ± 4.2 minutes, being lower for the Carus group (4.5 min) and higher for the standard group (13 min). Among the different sets, the standard one obtained the best mean scores for all subjective parameters. CONCLUSIONS: X-CONE allows easy abdominal access, and its reusable properties represent cost savings for LESS compared with disposable devices. Prebent instruments might also represent attractive low-cost tools for LESS.
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): where are we going? A bibliometric assessment.Publication . Autorino, R; Yakoubi, R; White, WM; Gettman, M; De Sio, M; Quattrone, C; Di Palma, C; Izzo, A; Correia-Pinto, J; Kaouk, JH; Lima, EThe aim of this study was to analyse natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-related publications over the last 5 years. A systematic literature search was done to retrieve publications related to NOTES from 2006 to 2011. The following variables were recorded: year of publication; article type; study design; setting; Journal Citation Reports® journal category; authors area of surgical speciality; geographic area of origin; surgical procedure; NOTES technique; NOTES access route; number of clinical cases. A time-trend analysis was performed by comparing early (2006-2008) and late (2009-2011) study periods. Overall, 644 publications were included in the analysis and most papers were found in general surgery journals (50.9%). Studies were most frequently clinical series (43.9%) and animal experimental (48%), with the articles focusing primarily on cholecystectomy, access creation and closure, and peritoneoscopy. Pure NOTES techniques were performed in most of the published reports (85%) with the remaining cases being hybrid NOTES (7.4%) and NOTES-assisted procedures (6.1%). The access routes included transgastric (52.5%), transcolonic (12.3%), transvesical (12.5%), transvaginal (10.5%), and combined (12.3%). From the early to the late period, there was a significant increase in the number of randomised controlled trials (5.6% vs 7.2%) or non-randomised but comparative studies (5.6% vs 22.9%) (P < 0.001) and there was also a significant increase in the number of colorectal procedures and nephrectomies (P = 0.002). Pure NOTES remained the most studied approach over the years but with increased investigation in the field of NOTES-assisted techniques (P = 0.001). There was also a significant increase in the adoption of transvesical access (7% vs 15.6%) (P = 0.007). NOTES is in a developmental stage and much work is still needed to refine techniques, verify safety and document efficacy. Since the first description of the concept of NOTES, >2000 clinical cases, irrespective of specialty, have been reported. NOTES remains a field of intense clinical and experimental research in various surgical specialities
- Public perception of "scarless" surgery: a critical analysis of the literaturePublication . Autorino, R; White, WM; Gettman, MT; Khalifeh, A; De Sio, M; Lima, E; Kaouk, JHEvidence relating to the perception and view of patients and physicians on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) was scrutinized. A comprehensive literature search was performed through PubMed. A total of 18 studies were included in the analysis. Patients demonstrated interest in scarless surgery, with a preference for LESS over NOTES. Safety and efficacy remain the key factors in the decision-making process of patients. With more information about the safety and reproducibility of LESS and NOTES, and with improved educational efforts, patients and physicians alike may feel more comfortable in widespread application of scarless surgery.
- Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skillsPublication . Cicione, A; Autorino, R; Breda, A; De Sio, M; Damiano, R; Fusco, F; Greco, F; Carvalho-Dias, E; Mota, P; Nogueira, C; Pinho, P; Mirone, V; Correia-Pinto, J; Rassweiler, J; Lima, EOBJECTIVE: To compare the last generation of 3-dimensional imaging (3D) vs standard 2-dimensional imaging (2D) laparoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted during the 4th Minimally Invasive Urological Surgical Week Course held in Braga (Portugal) in April 2013. The course participants and faculty were asked to perform standardized tasks in the dry laboratory setting and randomly assigned into 2 study groups; one starting with 3D, the other with 2D laparoscopy. The 5 tasks of the European Training in Basic Laparoscopic Urological Skills were performed. Time to complete each task and errors made were recorded and analyzed. An end-of-study questionnaire was filled by the participants. RESULTS: Ten laparoscopic experts and 23 laparoscopy-naïve residents were included. Overall, a significantly better performance was obtained using 3D in terms of time (1115 seconds, interquartile range [IQR] 596-1469 vs 1299 seconds, IQR 620-1723; P = .027) and number of errors (2, IQR 1-3 vs 3, IQR 2-5.5; P = .001). However, the experts were faster only in the "peg transfer" task when using the 3D, whereas naïves improved their performance in 3 of the 5 tasks. A linear correlation between level of experience and performance was found. Three-dimensional imaging was perceived as "easier" by a third of the laparoscopy-naïve participants (P = .027). CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional imaging seems to facilitate surgical performance of urologic surgeons without laparoscopic background in the dry laboratory setting. The advantage provided by 3D for those with previous laparoscopic experience remains to be demonstrated. Further studies are needed to determine the actual advantage of 3D over standard 2D laparoscopy in the clinical setting.