Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Anwendungsgebiete von roboterassistierten Operationsverfahren

Current developments and fields of application of robotically assisted surgical procedures

  • Fokus
  • Published:
Forum Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Roboterassistierte Operationssysteme („robotically assisted surgical systems“, RASS) haben sich über die letzten 20 Jahre rasant weiterentwickelt und zunehmend Einzug in die klinische Praxis erhalten, insbesondere auch in der onkologischen Chirurgie. Die Vorteile der konventionellen laparoskopischen Chirurgie für den Patienten, wie ein sehr geringes operatives Trauma durch die Zugangswege und eine verkürzte Rekonvaleszenz, werden durch RASS noch erweitert mithilfe technischer Innovationen und deutlich verbesserter Bedingungen für den Operateur hinsichtlich Ergonomie und Sichtfeld. Gleichzeitig bleiben die RASS Gegenstand kritischer Diskussionen angesichts ihres aktuell noch bestehenden Kostenaufwands bei – in manchen Indikationen – noch fehlender Evidenz für ihre Überlegenheit. Diese Übersicht zeigt die Anwendungsgebiete und die aktuellen Entwicklungen von RASS und beleuchtet Indikationen aus dem Bereich der onkologischen Chirurgie hinsichtlich ihrer Evidenz.

Abstract

Robotically assisted surgical systems (RASS) have developed rapidly over the past 20 years and have increasingly found their way into clinical practice, especially in oncological surgery. The advantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery for the patient, such as a very low level of surgical trauma due to the access route and shortened convalescence, are further expanded by RASS with the help of technical innovations and significantly improved conditions for the surgeon in terms of ergonomics and field of vision. At the same time RAAS are the subject of critical discussions due to their currently still existing high costs and in view of the lack of evidence for their superiority in some indications. This overview shows the areas of application and current developments of RASS and highlights indications from the field of oncological surgery with respect to their evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Avgousti S, Christoforou EG, Panayides AS et al (2016) Medical telerobotic systems: current status and future trends. BioMed Eng OnLine 15:96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Friedant AJ, Handorf EA, Su S et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open thymectomy for thymic malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 11:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Glynne-Jones R, Wyrwicz L, Tiret E et al (2018) Rectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 29:iv263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Grade M, Flebbe H, Franke F et al (2019) Aktuelle Möglichkeiten und Evidenz roboterassistierter Eingriffe in der chirurgischen Onkologie. Onkologe. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761-019-0622-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jara RD, Guerron AD, Portenier D (2020) Complications of robotic surgery. Surg Clin North Am 100:461–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H et al (2019) Robotic-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic resection surgery for rectal cancer: the ROLARR RCT. Efficacy Mech Eval. https://doi.org/10.3310/eme06100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kingma BF, De Maat MFG, Van Der Horst S et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) improves perioperative outcomes: a review. J Thorac Dis 11:S735–S742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kirchberg J, Weitz J (2019) Evidenz der Roboter-Chirurgie in der onkologischen Viszeralchirurgie. Chirurg 90:379–386

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Klodmann J, Schlenk C, Borsdorf S et al (2020) Robotische Assistenzsysteme für die Chirurgie. Chirurg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01205-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (2019) Deutsche Krebshilfe A S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom Langversion 2.1. AWM Registernummer: 021/007OL

    Google Scholar 

  11. Li JT, Liu PY, Huang J et al (2019) Perioperative outcomes of radical lobectomies using robotic-assisted thoracoscopic technique vs. video-assisted thoracoscopic technique: retrospective study of 1,075 consecutive p‑stage I non-small cell lung cancer cases. J Thorac Dis 11:882–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M et al (2001) Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 413:379–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Matsunaga T, Miyauchi W, Kono Y et al (2020) The advantages of robotic gastrectomy over laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer. Yonago Acta Med 63:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mejia A, Shah J, Vivian E et al (2020) Analysis of 102 fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies: clinical and financial outcomes. Pancreas 49:668–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Melfi FM, Fanucchi O, Davini F et al (2014) Robotic lobectomy for lung cancer: evolution in technique and technology. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46:626–630 (discussion 630–621)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moller T, Becker T, Reichert B et al (2020) Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIE) – setup, port placement, stepwise procedure guide. Zentralbl Chir 145:252–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Möller T, Steinert M, Becker T et al (2020) Robotics in thoracic surgery. Chirurg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01210-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ng CSH, MacDonald JK, Gilbert S et al (2019) Optimal approach to lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: systemic review and meta-analysis. Innovations (Phila) 14:90–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park JS, Kang H, Park SY et al (2019) Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 33:2975–2981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ranev D, Teixeira J (2020) History of computer-assisted surgery. Surg Clin North Am 100:209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rueckert J, Swierzy M, Badakhshi H et al (2015) Robotic-assisted thymectomy: surgical procedure and results. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 63:194–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rüger C, Moosburner S, Sauer IM (2020) Extended reality technologies for support of surgical workflows. Chirurg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01188-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schiergens TS, Sienel WGR, Werner J (2020) Implementation of new technologies in the DRG system under economic aspects. Chirurg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01184-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soomro NA, Hashimoto DA, Porteous AJ et al (2020) Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery. BJS Open 4:27–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Uyama I, Suda K, Nakauchi M et al (2019) Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study. Gastric Cancer 22:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Der Sluis PC, Tagkalos E, Hadzijusufovic E et al (2020) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): promising results in 100 consecutive patients (the European experience). J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04510-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Der Sluis PC, Van Der Horst S, May AM et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269:621–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wright JD (2017) Robotic-assisted surgery: balancing evidence and implementation. JAMA 318:1545–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zanagnolo V, Garbi A, Achilarre MT et al (2017) Robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24:379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland

    Lena-Christin Conradi & Michael Ghadimi

  2. Klinik für Allgemeine, Viszeral‑, Thorax‑, Transplantations- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, 24105, Kiel, Deutschland

    Thomas Becker & Jan‑Hendrik Egberts

Authors
  1. Lena-Christin Conradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Ghadimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan‑Hendrik Egberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan‑Hendrik Egberts.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

L.-C. Conradi, T. Becker, M. Ghadimi und J.-H. Egberts geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Conradi, LC., Becker, T., Ghadimi, M. et al. Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Anwendungsgebiete von roboterassistierten Operationsverfahren. Forum 35, 304–308 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12312-020-00812-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12312-020-00812-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation