HapticV1, PascalFrancis, Corpus, bibRecord, 000F52

Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy

Identifieur interne : 000F52 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000F51; suivant : 000F53

Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy

Auteurs : Wayne Kuang ; Paul R. Shin ; Surena Matin ; Anthony J. Jr Thomas

Source :

The Journal of urology [ 0022-5347 ] ; 2004.

RBID : Pascal:04-0441812

Descripteurs français

Pascal (Inist)
- Evaluation, Robotique, Technologie, Microchirurgie, Vasovasostomie, Homme, Urologie, Traitement, Néphrologie.

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Evaluation, Human, Microsurgery, Nephrology, Robotics, Technology, Treatment, Urology, Vasovasostomy.

Abstract

Purpose: Conventional microscope assisted vasovasostomy (MAW) is a technically difficult procedure that is most successful in the hands of well-trained microsurgeons. Robotics may help surgeons overcome the microsurgical challenges of tremor, limited dexterity, miniaturized instrumentation and use of fine suture. We determine the feasibility of a robotic assisted vasovasostomy (RAW) and compare performance measures with those of conventional MAW. Materials and Methods: One surgeon performed 10 vasovasostomies with a modified 1-layer technique and 9-zero suture on fresh human vas specimens using the robot in 5 RAW cases and standard microsurgical instrumentation in 5 MAW cases. Pre-specified performance measures and adverse haptic events (broken sutures, bent needles or loose stitches) were recorded. Patency was evaluated by instilling saline through the anastomoses. Results: Mean operating time and number of adverse haptic events were higher for RAW than for MAW (84 vs 38 minutes, p = 0.01; 2.4 vs 0.0 events, p = 0.03). The number of needle passes required for the 6 full-thickness stitches was similar in both groups (16.8 vs 15.2 passes, p = 0.55). Although no tremor occurred during RAW, minimal to moderate amounts occurred during MAW. Minimal fatigue was noted for both groups. Patency was confirmed in all 10 operations. Conclusions: Use of RAW in this human ex vivo vas model was feasible. While RAW took longer to perform and was associated with adverse haptic events, elimination of tremor and comparable patency rates suggest that it may be a viable surgical alternative for microsurgical vasovasostomy.

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.

A01	`01`	`1`		`@0 0022-5347`
A02	`01`			`@0 JOURAA`
A03		`1`		`@0 J. urol.`
A05				`@2 171`
A06				`@2 1`
A08	`01`	`1`	`ENG`	`@1 Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy`
A11	`01`	`1`		`@1 KUANG (Wayne)`
A11	`02`	`1`		`@1 SHIN (Paul R.)`
A11	`03`	`1`		`@1 MATIN (Surena)`
A11	`04`	`1`		`@1 THOMAS (Anthony J. JR)`
A14	`01`			`@1 Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation @2 Cleveland, Ohio @3 USA @Z 1 aut. @Z 2 aut. @Z 3 aut. @Z 4 aut.`
A20				`@1 300-303`
A21				`@1 2004`
A23	`01`			`@0 ENG`
A43	`01`			`@1 INIST @2 2081 @5 354000119147520680`
A44				`@0 0000 @1 © 2004 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.`
A45				`@0 16 ref.`
A47	`01`	`1`		`@0 04-0441812`
A60				`@1 P`
A61				`@0 A`
A64	`01`	`1`		`@0 The Journal of urology`
A66	`01`			`@0 USA`
C01	`01`		`ENG`	@0 Purpose: Conventional microscope assisted vasovasostomy (MAW) is a technically difficult procedure that is most successful in the hands of well-trained microsurgeons. Robotics may help surgeons overcome the microsurgical challenges of tremor, limited dexterity, miniaturized instrumentation and use of fine suture. We determine the feasibility of a robotic assisted vasovasostomy (RAW) and compare performance measures with those of conventional MAW. Materials and Methods: One surgeon performed 10 vasovasostomies with a modified 1-layer technique and 9-zero suture on fresh human vas specimens using the robot in 5 RAW cases and standard microsurgical instrumentation in 5 MAW cases. Pre-specified performance measures and adverse haptic events (broken sutures, bent needles or loose stitches) were recorded. Patency was evaluated by instilling saline through the anastomoses. Results: Mean operating time and number of adverse haptic events were higher for RAW than for MAW (84 vs 38 minutes, p = 0.01; 2.4 vs 0.0 events, p = 0.03). The number of needle passes required for the 6 full-thickness stitches was similar in both groups (16.8 vs 15.2 passes, p = 0.55). Although no tremor occurred during RAW, minimal to moderate amounts occurred during MAW. Minimal fatigue was noted for both groups. Patency was confirmed in all 10 operations. Conclusions: Use of RAW in this human ex vivo vas model was feasible. While RAW took longer to perform and was associated with adverse haptic events, elimination of tremor and comparable patency rates suggest that it may be a viable surgical alternative for microsurgical vasovasostomy.
C02	`01`	`X`		`@0 002B14`
C03	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Evaluation @5 02`
C03	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Evaluation @5 02`
C03	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Evaluación @5 02`
C03	`02`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Robotique @5 03`
C03	`02`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Robotics @5 03`
C03	`02`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Robótica @5 03`
C03	`03`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Technologie @5 05`
C03	`03`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Technology @5 05`
C03	`03`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Tecnología @5 05`
C03	`04`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Microchirurgie @5 06`
C03	`04`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Microsurgery @5 06`
C03	`04`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Microcirugía @5 06`
C03	`05`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Vasovasostomie @5 08`
C03	`05`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Vasovasostomy @5 08`
C03	`05`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Vasovasostomía @5 08`
C03	`06`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Homme @5 09`
C03	`06`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Human @5 09`
C03	`06`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Hombre @5 09`
C03	`07`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Urologie @5 11`
C03	`07`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Urology @5 11`
C03	`07`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Urología @5 11`
C03	`08`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Traitement @5 25`
C03	`08`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Treatment @5 25`
C03	`08`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Tratamiento @5 25`
C03	`09`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Néphrologie @4 CD @5 96`
C03	`09`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Nephrology @4 CD @5 96`
C03	`09`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Nefrología @4 CD @5 96`
C07	`01`	`X`	`FRE`	`@0 Chirurgie @5 37`
C07	`01`	`X`	`ENG`	`@0 Surgery @5 37`
C07	`01`	`X`	`SPA`	`@0 Cirugía @5 37`
N21				`@1 250`
N44	`01`			`@1 OTO`
N82				`@1 OTO`

Format Inist (serveur)

NO :	PASCAL 04-0441812 INIST
ET :	Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy
AU :	KUANG (Wayne); SHIN (Paul R.); MATIN (Surena); THOMAS (Anthony J. JR)
AF :	Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation/Cleveland, Ohio/Etats-Unis (1 aut., 2 aut., 3 aut., 4 aut.)
DT :	Publication en série; Niveau analytique
SO :	The Journal of urology; ISSN 0022-5347; Coden JOURAA; Etats-Unis; Da. 2004; Vol. 171; No. 1; Pp. 300-303; Bibl. 16 ref.
LA :	Anglais
EA :	Purpose: Conventional microscope assisted vasovasostomy (MAW) is a technically difficult procedure that is most successful in the hands of well-trained microsurgeons. Robotics may help surgeons overcome the microsurgical challenges of tremor, limited dexterity, miniaturized instrumentation and use of fine suture. We determine the feasibility of a robotic assisted vasovasostomy (RAW) and compare performance measures with those of conventional MAW. Materials and Methods: One surgeon performed 10 vasovasostomies with a modified 1-layer technique and 9-zero suture on fresh human vas specimens using the robot in 5 RAW cases and standard microsurgical instrumentation in 5 MAW cases. Pre-specified performance measures and adverse haptic events (broken sutures, bent needles or loose stitches) were recorded. Patency was evaluated by instilling saline through the anastomoses. Results: Mean operating time and number of adverse haptic events were higher for RAW than for MAW (84 vs 38 minutes, p = 0.01; 2.4 vs 0.0 events, p = 0.03). The number of needle passes required for the 6 full-thickness stitches was similar in both groups (16.8 vs 15.2 passes, p = 0.55). Although no tremor occurred during RAW, minimal to moderate amounts occurred during MAW. Minimal fatigue was noted for both groups. Patency was confirmed in all 10 operations. Conclusions: Use of RAW in this human ex vivo vas model was feasible. While RAW took longer to perform and was associated with adverse haptic events, elimination of tremor and comparable patency rates suggest that it may be a viable surgical alternative for microsurgical vasovasostomy.
CC :	002B14
FD :	Evaluation; Robotique; Technologie; Microchirurgie; Vasovasostomie; Homme; Urologie; Traitement; Néphrologie
FG :	Chirurgie
ED :	Evaluation; Robotics; Technology; Microsurgery; Vasovasostomy; Human; Urology; Treatment; Nephrology
EG :	Surgery
SD :	Evaluación; Robótica; Tecnología; Microcirugía; Vasovasostomía; Hombre; Urología; Tratamiento; Nefrología
LO :	INIST-2081.354000119147520680
ID :	04-0441812

Links to Exploration step

Pascal:04-0441812

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy</title>
<author><name sortKey="Kuang, Wayne" sort="Kuang, Wayne" uniqKey="Kuang W" first="Wayne" last="Kuang">Wayne Kuang</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Shin, Paul R" sort="Shin, Paul R" uniqKey="Shin P" first="Paul R." last="Shin">Paul R. Shin</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Matin, Surena" sort="Matin, Surena" uniqKey="Matin S" first="Surena" last="Matin">Surena Matin</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Thomas, Anthony J Jr" sort="Thomas, Anthony J Jr" uniqKey="Thomas A" first="Anthony J. Jr" last="Thomas">Anthony J. Jr Thomas</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">04-0441812</idno>
<date when="2004">2004</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 04-0441812 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:04-0441812</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000F52</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy</title>
<author><name sortKey="Kuang, Wayne" sort="Kuang, Wayne" uniqKey="Kuang W" first="Wayne" last="Kuang">Wayne Kuang</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Shin, Paul R" sort="Shin, Paul R" uniqKey="Shin P" first="Paul R." last="Shin">Paul R. Shin</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Matin, Surena" sort="Matin, Surena" uniqKey="Matin S" first="Surena" last="Matin">Surena Matin</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Thomas, Anthony J Jr" sort="Thomas, Anthony J Jr" uniqKey="Thomas A" first="Anthony J. Jr" last="Thomas">Anthony J. Jr Thomas</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">The Journal of urology</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. urol.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0022-5347</idno>
<imprint><date when="2004">2004</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">The Journal of urology</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. urol.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0022-5347</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Evaluation</term>
<term>Human</term>
<term>Microsurgery</term>
<term>Nephrology</term>
<term>Robotics</term>
<term>Technology</term>
<term>Treatment</term>
<term>Urology</term>
<term>Vasovasostomy</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Evaluation</term>
<term>Robotique</term>
<term>Technologie</term>
<term>Microchirurgie</term>
<term>Vasovasostomie</term>
<term>Homme</term>
<term>Urologie</term>
<term>Traitement</term>
<term>Néphrologie</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Purpose: Conventional microscope assisted vasovasostomy (MAW) is a technically difficult procedure that is most successful in the hands of well-trained microsurgeons. Robotics may help surgeons overcome the microsurgical challenges of tremor, limited dexterity, miniaturized instrumentation and use of fine suture. We determine the feasibility of a robotic assisted vasovasostomy (RAW) and compare performance measures with those of conventional MAW. Materials and Methods: One surgeon performed 10 vasovasostomies with a modified 1-layer technique and 9-zero suture on fresh human vas specimens using the robot in 5 RAW cases and standard microsurgical instrumentation in 5 MAW cases. Pre-specified performance measures and adverse haptic events (broken sutures, bent needles or loose stitches) were recorded. Patency was evaluated by instilling saline through the anastomoses. Results: Mean operating time and number of adverse haptic events were higher for RAW than for MAW (84 vs 38 minutes, p = 0.01; 2.4 vs 0.0 events, p = 0.03). The number of needle passes required for the 6 full-thickness stitches was similar in both groups (16.8 vs 15.2 passes, p = 0.55). Although no tremor occurred during RAW, minimal to moderate amounts occurred during MAW. Minimal fatigue was noted for both groups. Patency was confirmed in all 10 operations. Conclusions: Use of RAW in this human ex vivo vas model was feasible. While RAW took longer to perform and was associated with adverse haptic events, elimination of tremor and comparable patency rates suggest that it may be a viable surgical alternative for microsurgical vasovasostomy.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0022-5347</s0>
</fA01>
<fA02 i1="01"><s0>JOURAA</s0>
</fA02>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>J. urol.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>171</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>1</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>KUANG (Wayne)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>SHIN (Paul R.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>MATIN (Surena)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="04" i2="1"><s1>THOMAS (Anthony J. JR)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation</s1>
<s2>Cleveland, Ohio</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>4 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>300-303</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2004</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>2081</s2>
<s5>354000119147520680</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2004 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>16 ref.</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>04-0441812</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>The Journal of urology</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>USA</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Purpose: Conventional microscope assisted vasovasostomy (MAW) is a technically difficult procedure that is most successful in the hands of well-trained microsurgeons. Robotics may help surgeons overcome the microsurgical challenges of tremor, limited dexterity, miniaturized instrumentation and use of fine suture. We determine the feasibility of a robotic assisted vasovasostomy (RAW) and compare performance measures with those of conventional MAW. Materials and Methods: One surgeon performed 10 vasovasostomies with a modified 1-layer technique and 9-zero suture on fresh human vas specimens using the robot in 5 RAW cases and standard microsurgical instrumentation in 5 MAW cases. Pre-specified performance measures and adverse haptic events (broken sutures, bent needles or loose stitches) were recorded. Patency was evaluated by instilling saline through the anastomoses. Results: Mean operating time and number of adverse haptic events were higher for RAW than for MAW (84 vs 38 minutes, p = 0.01; 2.4 vs 0.0 events, p = 0.03). The number of needle passes required for the 6 full-thickness stitches was similar in both groups (16.8 vs 15.2 passes, p = 0.55). Although no tremor occurred during RAW, minimal to moderate amounts occurred during MAW. Minimal fatigue was noted for both groups. Patency was confirmed in all 10 operations. Conclusions: Use of RAW in this human ex vivo vas model was feasible. While RAW took longer to perform and was associated with adverse haptic events, elimination of tremor and comparable patency rates suggest that it may be a viable surgical alternative for microsurgical vasovasostomy.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002B14</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Evaluation</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Evaluation</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Evaluación</s0>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Robotique</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Robotics</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Robótica</s0>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Technologie</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Technology</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Tecnología</s0>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Microchirurgie</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Microsurgery</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Microcirugía</s0>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Vasovasostomie</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Vasovasostomy</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Vasovasostomía</s0>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Homme</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Human</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Hombre</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Urologie</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Urology</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Urología</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Traitement</s0>
<s5>25</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Treatment</s0>
<s5>25</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Tratamiento</s0>
<s5>25</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Néphrologie</s0>
<s4>CD</s4>
<s5>96</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Nephrology</s0>
<s4>CD</s4>
<s5>96</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Nefrología</s0>
<s4>CD</s4>
<s5>96</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Chirurgie</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Surgery</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Cirugía</s0>
<s5>37</s5>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>250</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 04-0441812 INIST</NO>
<ET>Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy</ET>
<AU>KUANG (Wayne); SHIN (Paul R.); MATIN (Surena); THOMAS (Anthony J. JR)</AU>
<AF>Glickman Urological Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation/Cleveland, Ohio/Etats-Unis (1 aut., 2 aut., 3 aut., 4 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>The Journal of urology; ISSN 0022-5347; Coden JOURAA; Etats-Unis; Da. 2004; Vol. 171; No. 1; Pp. 300-303; Bibl. 16 ref.</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Purpose: Conventional microscope assisted vasovasostomy (MAW) is a technically difficult procedure that is most successful in the hands of well-trained microsurgeons. Robotics may help surgeons overcome the microsurgical challenges of tremor, limited dexterity, miniaturized instrumentation and use of fine suture. We determine the feasibility of a robotic assisted vasovasostomy (RAW) and compare performance measures with those of conventional MAW. Materials and Methods: One surgeon performed 10 vasovasostomies with a modified 1-layer technique and 9-zero suture on fresh human vas specimens using the robot in 5 RAW cases and standard microsurgical instrumentation in 5 MAW cases. Pre-specified performance measures and adverse haptic events (broken sutures, bent needles or loose stitches) were recorded. Patency was evaluated by instilling saline through the anastomoses. Results: Mean operating time and number of adverse haptic events were higher for RAW than for MAW (84 vs 38 minutes, p = 0.01; 2.4 vs 0.0 events, p = 0.03). The number of needle passes required for the 6 full-thickness stitches was similar in both groups (16.8 vs 15.2 passes, p = 0.55). Although no tremor occurred during RAW, minimal to moderate amounts occurred during MAW. Minimal fatigue was noted for both groups. Patency was confirmed in all 10 operations. Conclusions: Use of RAW in this human ex vivo vas model was feasible. While RAW took longer to perform and was associated with adverse haptic events, elimination of tremor and comparable patency rates suggest that it may be a viable surgical alternative for microsurgical vasovasostomy.</EA>
<CC>002B14</CC>
<FD>Evaluation; Robotique; Technologie; Microchirurgie; Vasovasostomie; Homme; Urologie; Traitement; Néphrologie</FD>
<FG>Chirurgie</FG>
<ED>Evaluation; Robotics; Technology; Microsurgery; Vasovasostomy; Human; Urology; Treatment; Nephrology</ED>
<EG>Surgery</EG>
<SD>Evaluación; Robótica; Tecnología; Microcirugía; Vasovasostomía; Hombre; Urología; Tratamiento; Nefrología</SD>
<LO>INIST-2081.354000119147520680</LO>
<ID>04-0441812</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F52 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F52 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Ticri/CIDE
   |area=    HapticV1
   |flux=    PascalFrancis
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     Pascal:04-0441812
   |texte=   Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23.
Data generation: Mon Jun 13 01:09:46 2016. Site generation: Wed Mar 6 09:54:07 2024

	Serveur d'exploration sur les dispositifs haptiques
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur les dispositifs haptiques

Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy

Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy

Source :

Descripteurs français

English descriptors

Abstract

Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)

Format Inist (serveur)

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri