• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.48 no.5
• /
• pp.311-317
• /
• 2015

Background: Robotic surgery is an alternative to minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to report on current trends in robotic thoracic and cardiovascular surgical techniques in Korea. Methods: Data from the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) between January 2006 and June 2012 were used in this study, including a total of 932 cases of robotic surgeries reported to NECA. The annual trends in the case volume, indications for robotic surgery, and distribution by hospitals and surgeons were analyzed in this study. Results: Of the 932 cases, 591 (63%) were thoracic operations and 340 (37%) were cardiac operations. The case number increased explosively in 2007 and 2008. However, the rate of increase regained a steady state after 2011. The main indications for robotic thoracic surgery were pulmonary disease (n=271, 46%), esophageal disease (n=199, 34%), and mediastinal disease (n=117, 20%). The main indications for robotic cardiac surgery were valvular heart disease (n=228, 67%), atrial septal defect (n=79, 23%), and cardiac myxoma (n=27, 8%). Robotic thoracic and cardiovascular surgeries were performed in 19 hospitals. Three large volume hospitals performed 94% of the case volume of robotic cardiac surgery and 74% of robotic thoracic surgery. Centralization of robotic operation was significantly (p<0.0001) more common in cardiac surgery than in thoracic surgery. A total of 39 surgeons performed robotic surgeries. However, only 27% of cardiac surgeons and 23% of thoracic surgeons performed more than 10 cases of robotic surgery. Conclusion: Trend analysis of robotic and cardiovascular operations demonstrated a gradual increase in the surgical volume in Korea. Meanwhile, centralization of surgical cases toward specific surgeons in specific hospitals was observed.

• Korean Journal of Bronchoesophagology
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.27-32
• /
• 2010

Organ preservation surgery and minimally invasive surgery have been developed during the past 20 years with major focus on transoral laser surgery, endoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery. Two major robotic surgeries in head and neck area are transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and robotic thyroidectomy. Transoral robotic surgery is a safe and efficacious method of surgical treatment of oropharyngeal. hypopharyngeal and laryngeal neoplasm. Advantages of the technique include adequate ability to visualize and manipulate lesions with two hands. TORS can provide magnified three dimensional views and overcome the limitation resulting from the "line of sight" which hinders transoral laser procedure. The swallowing function following transoral robotic surgery show superior and patients were able to retain or rapidly regain swallowing function in the majority of cases. Recently, robotic thyroidectomy has also been developed to overcome the [imitation of endoscopic thyroidectomy. Robotic thyroidectomy by a gasless unilateral axillo-breast or axillary approach using a da Vinci S Surgical Robot is a feasible and cosmetically excellent procedure. It can be a promising alternative to endoscopic thyroidectomy or conventional open thyroidectomy.

• Korean Journal of Head & Neck Oncology
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2015

The role of transoral robotic surgery in the treatment of upper aerodigestive tract tumor has expanded in recent. Since the approval of the da Vinci system, the number of transoral robotic surgery has increased significantly. The main indications of transoral robotic surgery are tumors of oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynxs. Transoral robotic surgery is a minimally invasive surgical approach that offers surgical access to the laryngopharynx without the morbidity of open surgeries while achieving excellent oncologic and functional outcomes. The appropriate application of transoral robotic surgery is still being investigated and previous studies supports transoral robotic surgery as a viable option in the management of upper aerodigestive tract tumor.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.302-309
• /
• 2021

Totally robotic esophagectomy is performed using a robotic technique without additional thoracoscopy or laparoscopy. However, most robotic esophagectomies are currently performed in a hybrid form combining robotic and other endoscopic techniques. Laparoscopic stomach mobilization and thoracoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis are commonly used methods in robotic esophagectomy. In this paper, totally robotic esophagectomy without thoracoscopic or laparoscopic assistance is presented.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.266-278
• /
• 2021

Lobectomy is the standard treatment for early non-small cell lung cancer. Various surgical techniques for lobectomy have been developed, and minimally invasive thoracic surgery, such as video-assisted thoracic surgery or robot-assisted thoracic surgery, has been considered as an alternative to conventional open thoracotomy. The recently robotic lobectomy technique has developed since the first case series was published in 2002. Several studies have reported that robotic lobectomy has comparable oncologic and perioperative outcomes to those of video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy and open lobectomy. However, robotic lobectomy remains a challenge for surgeons because of the steep learning curve, reduced tactile sensation, difficulty in port placement, and challenges in cooperation between the surgeon and assistant. Many studies have reported on robotic lobectomy, but few have presented surgical techniques for robotic lobectomy. In this article, the surgical techniques and optimal performance of robotic lobectomy are described in detail for all 5 types of lobectomy for surgeons beginning with robotic lobectomy.

• Journal of Digestive Cancer Research
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.99-106
• /
• 2016

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer has increased in popularity during the last two decades mainly in the Asia for patients with early-stage cancer. Nevertheless, the development of laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancers in the Western world has been slow because of the advanced stage at diagnosis for which LG is not yet considered an acceptable alternative to standard open surgery. RAG has been reported as a safe alternative to conventional surgery for treating of early gastric carcinoma. We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer focusing on the technical details, postoperative outcome, oncological considerations and future perspectives. In gastrectomy the biggest advantage of the robotic approach is the ease and reproducibility of lymphadenectomy. Reports also show that even the intra corporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following TG. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss in comparison to conventional laparoscopy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer. While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional gastrectomy. There are some advantages in terms of postoperative recovery of patients after robotic surgery. More studies are needed to assess the true indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.49 no.3
• /
• pp.373-377
• /
• 2022

Currently, robot-assisted latissimus dorsi muscle flap (RLDF) surgery is used in treating patients with Poland syndrome and for breast reconstruction. However, conventional RLDF surgery has several inherent issues. We resolved the existing problems of the conventional system by introducing the da Vinci single-port system in patients with Poland syndrome. Overall, three patients underwent RLDF surgery using the da Vinci single-port system with gas insufflation. In the female patient, after performing RLDF with silicone implant, augmentation mammoplasty was also performed on the contralateral side. Both surgeries were performed as single-port robotic-assisted surgery through the transaxillary approach. The mean operating time was 449 (335-480) minutes; 8.67 (4-14) minutes were required for docking and 59 (52-67) minutes for robotic dissection and LD harvesting. No patients had perioperative complication and postoperative problems related to gas inflation. The single-port robot-assisted surgical system overcomes the drawbacks of previous robotic surgery in patients with Poland syndrome, significantly shortens the procedure time of robotic surgery, has superior cosmetic outcomes in a surgical scar, and improves the operator's convenience. Furthermore, concurrent application to another surgery demonstrates the possibility in the broad application of the robotic single-port surgical system.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.201-210
• /
• 2014

During the last decade the role of minimally invasive surgery has been increased, especially with the introduction of the robotic system in the surgical field. The most important advantages of robotic system are represented by the wristed instrumentation and the depth perception, which can overcome the limitation of traditional thoracoscopy. However, some data still exist in literature with regard to robotic lobectomy. The majority of papers are focused on its safety and feasibility, but further studies with long follow-ups are necessary in order to assess the oncologic outcomes. We reviewed the literature on robotic lobectomy, with the main aim to better define the role of robotic system in the clinical practice.

• Proceedings of the KIEE Conference
• /
• 2008.10b
• /
• pp.68-70
• /
• 2008

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the emergence of innovative technologies made further advances in minimal access surgery possible. Robotic surgery and telepresence surgery effectively addressed the limitations of laparoscopic procedures, thus revolutionizing minimal access surgery. Surgical robots provide surgeons with to technologically advanced vision and hand skills. As a result, such systems are expected to revolutionize the field of surgery. In that time, much progress has been made in integrating robotic technologies with surgical instrumentation. However, robotic surgery will not only require special training, but it will also change the existing surgical training pattern and reshape the learning curve by offering new solutions, such as robotic surgical simulators and robotic telementoring. This article provides an introduction to medical robotic technologies, develops a possible classification, reviews the evolution of a surgical robot, and discusses future prospects for innovation. In the future, surgical robots should be smaller, less expensive, easier to operate, and should seamlessly integrate emerging technologies from a number of different fields. We believe that, in the near future as robotic technology continues to develop, almost all kinds of endoscopic surgery will be performed by this technology.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.67-70
• /
• 2015

To establish an appropriate policy for robotic surgery in Korea, the National Evidence-based Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Society of Health Policy and Administration held a round-table conference (RTC) to gather opinions through a comprehensive discussion of scientific information in gastric cancer. The NECA RTC is a public discussion forum wherein experts from diverse fields and members of the lay public conduct in-depth discussions on a selected social issue in the health and medical field. For this study, representatives from the medical field, patient groups, industry, the press, and policy makers participated in a discussion focused on the medical and scientific evidence for the use of robotic surgery in gastric cancer. According to the RTC results, robotic surgery showed more favorable results in safety and efficacy than open surgery and it is similar to laparoscopy. When the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery and laparoscopy is compared, robotic surgery costs are higher but there was no difference between the two of them in terms of effectiveness (pain, quality of life, complications, etc.). In order to resolve the high cost issue of the robotic surgery, a proper policy should be implemented to facilitate the development of a cost-effective model of the robotic surgery equipment. The higher cost of robotic surgery require more evidence of its safety and efficacy as well as the cost-effectiveness issues of this method. Discussions on the national insurance coverage of robotic surgery seems to be necessary in the near future.