MP23-17 IMPROVED OUTCOMES DURING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY UTILIZING AIRSEAL TECHNOLOGY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Instrumentation & Technology I1 Apr 2016MP23-17 IMPROVED OUTCOMES DURING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY UTILIZING AIRSEAL TECHNOLOGY Mona Yezdani, Sue-Jean Yu, Alexandra Lee, Benjamin Taylor, Alice McGill, Kelly Monahan, and David Lee Mona YezdaniMona Yezdani More articles by this author , Sue-Jean YuSue-Jean Yu More articles by this author , Alexandra LeeAlexandra Lee More articles by this author , Benjamin TaylorBenjamin Taylor More articles by this author , Alice McGillAlice McGill More articles by this author , Kelly MonahanKelly Monahan More articles by this author , and David LeeDavid Lee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.739AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Airseal is a newer technology utilizing an integrated access system during minimally invasive surgery. Its goal is to provide stable pneumoperitoneum and continuous smoke evacuation. A few small volume studies have compared Airseal to the standard multi-component insufflation system and have shown an improvement in stable pneumoperitoneum and ease of manipulating objects through the Airseal port. In this study, we compare the standard system to the Airseal system to evaluate potential benefits in a larger cohort. METHODS We performed a single-institution, single-surgeon prospective study of 149 consecutive patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy from June 2014 to April 2015. Gas insufflation with CO2 was performed using either standard multi-component insufflation with a 12mm Covidien Versaport bladeless trocar from June 2014 to October 2014 or with Airseal system from November 2014 to April 2015. Multiple data points were assessed including total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and pain score at 0-6 hours, 6-12 hours, 12-18 hours. RESULTS 149 patients were analyzed with 79 in the control arm and 70 in the study arm. There was no significant difference between the study and control groups in mean age (62 vs. 61) or BMI (28 vs. 27). A significant difference was seen in total operative time with 146 minutes in the Airseal group and 167 minutes in the control (p=0.0002) and in intraoperative blood loss with mean of 132 ml in Airseal group versus 215 ml in the control (p=.0031). Pain scores for time 6-12 hours were significantly lower (3.3 vs. 4.1) in the Airseal group compared to the control but were not significant for 0-6 or 6-18 hours (1.9 vs. 2.4 and 2.9 vs. 3.6, respectively). However, across all times, the numerical level given for pain was always less with Airseal. CONCLUSIONS This prospective study shows an advantage to using Airseal compared to standard insufflation. There is significantly less operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and pain scores at 6-12 hours. This is most likely attributable to the stable pneumoperitoneum and improved visibility without the need for bedside interruption with suction or cleaning of the camera. Improved pain scores may be associated with the stable pneumoperitoneum without intermittent stretching of the muscles and incisions. Thus, the results of this study show that Airseal can be advantageous during robotic prostatectomy. Further larger volume studies are required to assess for the utility of Airseal in all robotic procedures. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e268 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Mona Yezdani More articles by this author Sue-Jean Yu More articles by this author Alexandra Lee More articles by this author Benjamin Taylor More articles by this author Alice McGill More articles by this author Kelly Monahan More articles by this author David Lee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».