Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T10:22:12.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - The Past, Present, and Future of Robotics

A Surgical and Anesthetic Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

By
Maunak V. Rana  and
Aladino De Ranieri
Edited by
Alan David Kaye  and
Richard D. Urman
Alan David Kaye
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Richard D. Urman
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Perioperative Management in Robotic Surgery , pp. 249 - 256
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lanfranco, AR, Castellanos, AE, Desai, JP, Meyers, WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Annals of Surgery. 2004;239(1):14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, PL, Merguerian, PA, Bihrle, W III, Heaney, JA, Seigne, JD. A da Vinci robot system can make sense for a mature laparoscopic prostatectomy program. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2008;12(1):9–12.Google Scholar
Macario, A. What does one minute of operating room time cost? Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. 2010;22(4):233–6.Google Scholar
Autorino, R, Kaouk, JH, Stolzenburg, JU, et al. Current status and future directions of robotic single-site surgery: a systematic review. European Urology. 2013;63(2):266–80.Google Scholar
Barret, E, Sanchez-Salas, R, Ercolani, M, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (R-LESS) in urology: an evidence-based analysis. Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2011;63(2):115–22.Google Scholar
Ahmed, K, Khan, R, Mottrie, A, et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU International. 2015;116(1):93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romero, V, Akpinar, H, Smith, JJ III, Assimos, DG. Changing patterns in iatrogenic ureteral injuries. Reviews in Urology. 2011;13(4):e179–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Hsu, RL, Kaye, AD, Urman, RD. Anesthetic challenges in robotic-assisted urologic surgery. Reviews in Urology. 2013;15(4):178–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaye, AD, Vadivelu, N, Ahuja, N, Mitra, S, Silasi, D, Urman, RD. Anesthetic considerations in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. The Ochsner Journal. 2013;13(4):517–24.Google Scholar
Campos, J, Ueda, K. Update on anesthetic complications of robotic thoracic surgery. Minerva Anestesiologica. 2014;80(1):83–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, W, Li, J, Wang, S, Su, H, Jiang, X. System design and animal experiment study of a novel minimally invasive surgical robot. The International Journal of Medical Robotics + Computer Assisted Surgery. 2015Google ScholarPubMed
Shuhaiber, JH. Augmented reality in surgery. Archives of Surgery (Chicago, IL: 1960). 2004;139(2):170–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Hughes-Hallett, A, Pratt, P, Mayer, E, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound overlay in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: first clinical experience. European Urology. 2014;65(3):671–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, K, Naya, Y, Zenbutsu, S, et al. Surgical navigation using three-dimensional computed tomography images fused intraoperatively with live video. Journal of Endourology/Endourological Society. 2010;24(4):521–4.Google Scholar
Zhu, E, Hadadgar, A, Masiello, I, Zary, N. Augmented reality in healthcare education: an integrative review. PeerJ. 2014;2:e469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wehbe, M, Giacalone, M, Hemmerling, TM. Robotics and regional anesthesia. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. 2014;27(5):544–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemmerling, TM, Taddei, R, Wehbe, M, Zaouter, C, Cyr, S, Morse, J. First robotic tracheal intubations in humans using the Kepler intubation system. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2012;108(6):1011–6.Google Scholar
Hemmerling, TM, Wehbe, M, Zaouter, C, Taddei, R, Morse, J. The Kepler intubation system. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2012;114(3):590–4.Google Scholar
Hemmerling, TM, Terrasini, N. Robotic anesthesia: not the realm of science fiction any more. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. 2012;25(6):736–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, SB. McSleepy, da Vinci, Kepler Intubation System et al. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2013;57(1):101–2.Google Scholar
Pambianco, DJ, Whitten, CJ, Moerman, A, Struys, MM, Martin, JF. An assessment of computer-assisted personalized sedation: a sedation delivery system to administer propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2008;68(3):542–7.Google Scholar
Manberg, PJ, Vozella, CM, Kelley, SD. Regulatory challenges facing closed-loop anesthetic drug infusion devices. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2008;84(1):166–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleary, K, Stoianovici, D, Patriciu, A, Mazilu, D, Lindisch, D, Watson, V. Robotically assisted nerve and facet blocks: a cadaveric study. Academic Radiology. 2002;9(7):821–5.Google Scholar
Cleary, K, Watson, V, Lindisch, D, et al. Precision placement of instruments for minimally invasive procedures using a “needle driver” robot. The International Journal of Medical Robotics + Computer Assisted Surgery. 2005;1(2):40–7.Google Scholar
Tighe, PJ, Badiyan, SJ, Luria, I, Boezaart, AP, Parekattil, S. Technical communication: robot-assisted regional anesthesia: a simulated demonstration. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2010;111(3):813–6.Google Scholar
Hemmerling, TM, Taddei, R, Wehbe, M, Cyr, S, Zaouter, C, Morse, J. Technical communication: first robotic ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in humans using the Magellan system. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2013;116(2):491–4.Google Scholar
de Almeida, JR, Genden, EM. Robotic surgery for oropharynx cancer: promise, challenges, and future directions. Current Oncology Reports. 2012;14(2):148–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troisi, RI, Patriti, A, Montalti, R, Casciola, L. Robot assistance in liver surgery: a real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis. The International Journal of Medical Robotics + Computer Assisted Surgery. 2013;9(2):160–6.Google Scholar
Tranchart, H, Ceribelli, C, Ferretti, S, Dagher, I, Patriti, A. Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: a matched-pair comparative study. World Journal of Surgery. 2014;38(11):2904–9.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, QM, Moll, FL, van Herwaarden, JA. Current state in tracking and robotic navigation systems for application in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2015;61(1):256–64.Google Scholar
Antoniou, GA, Riga, CV, Mayer, EK, Cheshire, NJ, Bicknell, CD. Clinical applications of robotic technology in vascular and endovascular surgery. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2011;53(2):493–9.Google Scholar
Gong, Y, Hu, D, Hannaford, B, Seibel, EJ. Accurate three-dimensional virtual reconstruction of surgical field using calibrated trajectories of an image-guided medical robot. Journal of Medical Imaging (Bellingham, Wash.). 2014;1(3):035002.Google Scholar
Haber, GP, Autorino, R, Laydner, H, et al. SPIDER surgical system for urologic procedures with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: from initial laboratory experience to first clinical application. European Urology. 2012;61(2):415–22.Google Scholar
Rieder, E, Martinec, DV, Cassera, MA, Goers, TA, Dunst, CM, Swanstrom, LL. A triangulating operating platform enhances bimanual performance and reduces surgical workload in single-incision laparoscopy. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2011;212(3):378–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×