Literature Review : Robotic-Assisted Harvest of Deep Inferior Epigastric Flap for Breast Reconstruction
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved..
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery is gaining popularity because of reported improvement in aesthetic outcomes while reducing the occurrence of complications compared with conventional surgical methods. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap harvesting has a long track record as a viable procedure for autologous reconstruction of the breast. In this literature review, we describe the feasibility of using the robotic platform in DIEP flap harvest.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology was to guide the literature review. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from inception to June 6, 2022. The Medical Subject Heading terms and keywords used to conduct this search are as described: "Robotic AND deep inferior epigastric perforator AND Breast reconstruction.".
RESULTS: Seven publications, detailing a total of 56 robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest procedures, were selected for review. Four publications used the transabdominal preperitoneal approach, whereas 2 exclusively used a totally extraperitoneal approach, and 1 compared the 2 approaches. The measured outcomes included technical feasibility of flap harvest in cadavers, viable flap harvest in live patients, harvest time and pedicle dissection time, pedicle length, fascial incision length, donor site pain, need for postoperative narcotic, donor site morbidity, and hernia formation. Overall, the reviewed articles demonstrated successful DIEP flap harvesting without the need for conversion to the conventional open procedure. Postoperative complications were minimal. Robotic DIEP flap harvest was shown to be safe and there were no reports of donor-site morbidity in the studies reviewed. The main advantages of the robotic approach include decreased postoperative pain and length of hospital stay, along with improved aesthetic outcomes. The main disadvantages are increased operative time and cost.
CONCLUSIONS: Although at its current iteration, the robotic-assisted DIEP flap is feasible, it may not be practical in all settings. Furthermore, the true benefit of the robotic platform is yet to be determined, as more long-term studies are necessary.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:89 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Annals of plastic surgery - 89(2022), 6 vom: 01. Dez., Seite 703-708 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Khan, Mustafa T A [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.11.2022 Date Revised 02.12.2022 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1097/SAP.0000000000003326 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM349298122 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM349298122 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226042305.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003326 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1164.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM349298122 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36416707 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Khan, Mustafa T A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Literature Review |b Robotic-Assisted Harvest of Deep Inferior Epigastric Flap for Breast Reconstruction |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.11.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 02.12.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted surgery is gaining popularity because of reported improvement in aesthetic outcomes while reducing the occurrence of complications compared with conventional surgical methods. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap harvesting has a long track record as a viable procedure for autologous reconstruction of the breast. In this literature review, we describe the feasibility of using the robotic platform in DIEP flap harvest | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology was to guide the literature review. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from inception to June 6, 2022. The Medical Subject Heading terms and keywords used to conduct this search are as described: "Robotic AND deep inferior epigastric perforator AND Breast reconstruction." | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Seven publications, detailing a total of 56 robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest procedures, were selected for review. Four publications used the transabdominal preperitoneal approach, whereas 2 exclusively used a totally extraperitoneal approach, and 1 compared the 2 approaches. The measured outcomes included technical feasibility of flap harvest in cadavers, viable flap harvest in live patients, harvest time and pedicle dissection time, pedicle length, fascial incision length, donor site pain, need for postoperative narcotic, donor site morbidity, and hernia formation. Overall, the reviewed articles demonstrated successful DIEP flap harvesting without the need for conversion to the conventional open procedure. Postoperative complications were minimal. Robotic DIEP flap harvest was shown to be safe and there were no reports of donor-site morbidity in the studies reviewed. The main advantages of the robotic approach include decreased postoperative pain and length of hospital stay, along with improved aesthetic outcomes. The main disadvantages are increased operative time and cost | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Although at its current iteration, the robotic-assisted DIEP flap is feasible, it may not be practical in all settings. Furthermore, the true benefit of the robotic platform is yet to be determined, as more long-term studies are necessary | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Won, Brian Wong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Baumgardner, Kyle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lue, Melinda |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Montorfano, Lisandro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hosein, Rayaad C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wang, Howard T |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Martinez, Roberto A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Annals of plastic surgery |d 1979 |g 89(2022), 6 vom: 01. Dez., Seite 703-708 |w (DE-627)NLM000455040 |x 1536-3708 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:89 |g year:2022 |g number:6 |g day:01 |g month:12 |g pages:703-708 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000003326 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 89 |j 2022 |e 6 |b 01 |c 12 |h 703-708 | ||