Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery revolutionized operative procedures in the last 20 years. Much of the progress in minimally invasive surgery can be attributed to the development of robot-based systems. The most apparent changes are found in laparoscopy procedures. Procedures in which only small skin incisions are made have revolutionized operating theaters. The learning curve, although long in itself, allows for the development of procedures with reduced perioperative risk (i.e., bleeding, pain) or shorter postoperative period. Convalescence after endoscopy procedures is significantly shorter compared with classic laparotomy. However, certain limitations apply to laparoscopy. Apart from the long learning curve, movements executed with long and rigid tools cannot strictly translate the precision of an operator’s hand. The body position of the surgeon is often forced by the reach of the endoscope instrument. It is related to a significant physical load of personnel, especially during long operating procedures. For this reason, some therapeutic procedures are still executed using the laparotomy approach.
Conflict of interest statement
Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. Research funding played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
Research funding: The project was funded by the National Centre for Research and Development.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
References
1. Fagotti A, Petrillo M, Rossitto C, Scambia G. Standardized training programmes for advanced laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2013;25:327–31.10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283630de9Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Hibner M, Marianowski P, Szymusik I, Wielgoś M. Zastosowanie robotów w chirurgii ginekologicznej. Ginekol Pol 2012;83: 934–8.Search in Google Scholar
3. O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA. Robot-assisted surgery: impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1163–73.10.1007/s00192-012-1790-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Plowright LN, Duggal B, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Endoscopic transurethral resection of urethral mesh erosion with the use of a pediatric nasal speculum. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:440–3.10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827ee037Search in Google Scholar
5. Stangel-Wojcikiewicz K, Jarocha D, Piwowar M, Jach R, Uhl T, Basta A, et al. Autologous muscle-derived cells for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a 2-year follow-up of a polish investigation. Neurourol Urodyn 2014;33:324–30.10.1002/nau.22404Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Petko M. Wybrane metody projektowania mechatronicznego. Krakow, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Technologii Eksploatacji – PIB, Radom, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
7. Yu T, Luo J, Singhal A, Ahuja N, editors. Shape regularized active contour based on dynamic programming for anatomical structure segmentation. In: Proc SPIE 5747, Medical Imaging 2005: Image Processing, 2005.10.1117/12.594662Search in Google Scholar
8. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2006. Available at: http://medical.nema.org/.Search in Google Scholar
9. Batce KJ. Finite element procedures. Cambridge, MA: Klaus-Jürgen Bathe, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
10. Petko M, Karpiel G, editors. Hardware/software co-design of control algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, 2006:2156–61.10.1109/ICMA.2006.257627Search in Google Scholar
11. Petko M, Gac K, Karpiel G, Ochoński J, editors. Acceleration of parallel robot trajectory generation in FPGA. In: 2013 8th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), 19–21 June, 2013:1123–8.10.1109/ICIEA.2013.6566535Search in Google Scholar
12. Bateman J, Allen ME, Kidd J, Parsons N, Davies D. Virtual patients design and its effect on clinical reasoning and student experience: a protocol for a randomised factorial multi-centre study. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:62.10.1186/1472-6920-12-62Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Oliven A, Nave R, Hasson-Gilad DR, Baruch A. Medical students’ views on the use of virtual patients for teaching and assessment of clinical knowledge and reasoning. Harefuah 2013;152: 257–61.Search in Google Scholar
14. Pataki C, Pato MT, Sugar J, Rizzo AS, Parsons TD, George C, et al. Virtual patients as novel teaching tools in psychiatry. Acad Psychiatry 2012;36:398–400.10.1176/appi.ap.10080118Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Kononowicz A, Krawczyk P, Cebula G, Dembkowska M, Drab E, Frączek B, et al. Effects of introducing a voluntary virtual patient module to a basic life support with an automated external defibrillator course: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2012;12:41.10.1186/1472-6920-12-41Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Piwowar M, Kułaga T, Guratowska M, Stachoń A, Kononowicz A. Genomic virtual patients – the learning way not only for medical doctor. Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst 2010;6:161.Search in Google Scholar
17. Swan K, Advincula AP. Advances in urogynaecological robotic surgery. Br J Urol 2011;108:1024–7.10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10557.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Matthews CA. The promise of robotics in urogynecology. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1177–8.10.1007/s00192-011-1619-5Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006;191:555–60.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.01.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;150:92–6.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Sert MB, Eraker R. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynaecological oncology; initial experience at Oslo Radium Hospital and 16 months follow-up. Int J Med Robot 2009;5:410–4.10.1002/rcs.272Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Toglia MR. What is the role of innovative minimally invasive surgery in today’s medicine? Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1175–6.10.1007/s00192-011-1618-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF. Robotic surgery in gynaecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011;2011:852061.10.1155/2011/852061Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
©2014 by De Gruyter
