Browsing by Subject "robotics"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management.
    (Journal of clinical medicine, 2024-04) Drossopoulos, Peter N; Sharma, Arnav; Ononogbu-Uche, Favour C; Tabarestani, Troy Q; Bartlett, Alyssa M; Wang, Timothy Y; Huie, David; Gottfried, Oren; Blitz, Jeanna; Erickson, Melissa; Lad, Shivanand P; Bullock, W Michael; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Abd-El-Barr, Muhammad M
    The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Robotic versus port-access mitral repair: A propensity score analysis.
    (Journal of cardiac surgery, 2021-04) Barac, Yaron D; Loungani, Rahul S; Sabulsky, Richard; Zwischenberger, Brittany; Gaca, Jeffrey; Carr, Keith; Glower, Donald D

    Background

    Port-access (PORT) and robotic (ROBO) mitral repair are well established, but differences in patient selection and outcomes are not well documented.

    Methods

    A retrospective analysis was performed on 129 ROBO and 628 PORT mitral repairs at one institution. ROBO patients had 4 cm nonrib spreading incisions with robotic assistance, while PORT patients had 6-8 cm rib spreading incisions with thoracoscopic assistance. Propensity score analysis matched patients for differences in baseline characteristics.

    Results

    Unmatched ROBO patients were younger (58 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 13, p = .05), had a higher percentage of males (77% vs. 63%, p = .003) and had less NYHA Class 3-4 symptoms (11% vs. 21%, p < .01), less atrial fibrillation (19% vs. 29%, p = .02) and less tricuspid regurgitation (14% vs. 24%, p = .01). Propensity score analysis of matched patients showed that pump time (275 ± 57 vs. 207 ± 55, p < .0001) and clamp time (152 ± 38 vs. 130 ± 34, p < .0001) were longer for ROBO patients. However, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and 5-year survival (97 ± 1% vs. 96 ± 3%, p = .7) were not different. For matched patients with degenerative valve disease, 5-year incidence of mitral reoperation (3 ± 2% vs. 1 ± 1%), severe mitral regurgitation (MR) (6 ± 4% vs. 1 ± 1%), or ≥2 + MR (12 ± 5% vs. 12 ± 4%), were not significantly different between ROBO versus PORT approaches. Predictors of recurrent moderate MR were connective tissue disease, functional etiology, and non-White race, but not surgical approach.

    Conclusions

    In this first comparison out to 5 years, robotic versus port-access approach to mitral repair had longer pump and clamp times. Perioperative morbidity, 5-year survival, and 5-year repair durability were otherwise similar.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Treatment of adult thoracolumbar spinal deformity: past, present, and future.
    (Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2019-05) Smith, Justin S; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Ames, Christopher P; Lenke, Lawrence G
    Care of the patient with adult spinal deformity (ASD) has evolved from being primarily supportive to now having the ability to directly treat and correct the spinal pathology. The focus of this narrative literature review is to briefly summarize the history of ASD treatment, discuss the current state of the art of ASD care with focus on surgical treatment and current challenges, and conclude with a discussion of potential developments related to ASD surgery.In the past, care for ASD was primarily based on supportive measures, including braces and assistive devices, with few options for surgical treatments that were often deemed high risk and reserved for rare situations. Advances in anesthetic and critical care, surgical techniques, and instrumentation now enable almost routine surgery for many patients with ASD. Despite the advances, there are many remaining challenges currently impacting the care of ASD patients, including increasing numbers of elderly patients with greater comorbidities, high complication and reoperation rates, and high procedure cost without clearly demonstrated cost-effectiveness based on standard criteria. In addition, there remains considerable variability across multiple aspects of ASD surgery. For example, there is currently very limited ability to provide preoperative individualized counseling regarding optimal treatment approaches (e.g., operative vs nonoperative), complication risks with surgery, durability of surgery, and likelihood of achieving individualized patient goals and satisfaction. Despite the challenges associated with the current state-of-the-art ASD treatment, surgery continues to be a primary option, as multiple reports have demonstrated the potential for surgery to significantly improve pain and disability. The future of ASD care will likely include techniques and technologies to markedly reduce complication rates, including greater use of navigation and robotics, and a shift toward individualized medicine that enables improved counseling, preoperative planning, procedure safety, and patient satisfaction.Advances in the care of ASD patients have been remarkable over the past few decades. The current state of the art enables almost routine surgical treatment for many types of ASD that have the potential to significantly improve pain and disability. However, significant challenges remain, including high complication rates, lack of demonstrated cost-effectiveness, and limited ability to meaningfully counsel patients preoperatively on an individual basis. The future of ASD surgery will require continued improvement of predictability, safety, and sustainability.