Robotic surgery in Italy national survey (2011)

被引:11
作者
Santoro E. [1 ]
Pansadoro V. [2 ]
机构
[1] San Camillo Forlanini Foundation, Rome
[2] Vincenzo Pansadoro Foundation, Rome
关键词
Da Vinci Robot; Italian national survey; Robotic surgery;
D O I
10.1007/s13304-012-0190-z
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Robotic surgery in Italy has become a clinical reality that is gaining increasing acceptance. As of 2011 after the United States, Italy together with Germany is the country with the largest number of active Robotic centers, 46, and da Vinci Robots installed, with at least 116 operators already trained. The number of interventions performed in Italy in 2011 exceeded 6,000 and in 2010 were 4,784, with prevalence for urology, general surgery and gynecology, however these interventions have also begun to be applied in other fields such as cervicofacial, cardiothoracic and pediatric surgery. In Italy Robotic centers are mostly located in Northern Italy, while in the South there are only a few centers, and four regions are lacking altogether. Of the 46 centers which were started in 1999, the vast majority is still operational and almost half handle over 200 cases a year. The quality of the work is also especially high with large diffusion of radical prostatectomy in urology and liver resection and colic in general surgery. The method is very well accepted among operators, over 80 %, and among patients, over 95 %. From the analysis of world literature and a survey carried out in Italy, Robotic surgery, which at the moment could be better defined as telesurgery, represents a significant advantage for operators and a consistent gain for the patient. However, it still has important limits such as high cost and non-structured training of operators. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Italia.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:8
相关论文
共 30 条
[11]  
Ficarra V., Novara G., Artibani W., Cestari A., Galfano A., Graefen M., Guazzoni G., Guillonneau B., Menon M., Montorsi F., Patel V., Rassweiler J., Van Poppel H., Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies, Eur Urol, 55, 5, pp. 1037-1063, (2009)
[12]  
Bolenz C., Gupta A., Hotze T., Ho R., Cadeddu J.A., Roehrborn C.G., Lotan Y., Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, Eur Urol, 57, 3, pp. 453-458, (2010)
[13]  
Uberoi J., Disick G.I., Munver R., Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: Update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty, BJU Int, 104, 11, pp. 1722-1729, (2009)
[14]  
Seo I.Y., Choi H., Boldbaatr Y., Lee J.W., Rim J.S., Operative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy: A comparison with conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, Korean J Urol, 52, 4, pp. 279-283, (2011)
[15]  
Kim Y.T., Kim S.W., Jung Y.W., Robotic surgery in gynecologic field, Yonsei Med J, 49, 6, pp. 886-890, (2008)
[16]  
Debernardo R., Starks D., Barker N., Armstrong A., Kunos C.A., Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology, Obstet Gynecol Int, 2011, (2011)
[17]  
Nick A.M., Ramirez P.T., The impact of robotic surgery on gynecologic oncology, J Gynecol Oncol, 22, 3, pp. 196-202, (2011)
[18]  
Baik S.H., Robotic colorectal surgery, Yonsei Med J, 49, 6, pp. 891-896, (2008)
[19]  
D'Annibale A., Morpurgo E., Fiscon V., Trevisan P., Sovernigo G., Orsini C., Guidolin D., Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases, Dis Colon Rectum, 47, 12, pp. 2162-2168, (2004)
[20]  
Spinoglio G., Summa M., Priora F., Quarati R., Testa S., Robotic colorectal surgery: First 50 cases experience, Dis Colon Rectum, 51, 11, pp. 1627-1632, (2008)