STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Research and Reviews : Journal of Surgery Review Article

Impact on Mobility and Mortality in Minimally Invasive Surgeries

  1. Kaisar A. Bhat Department of Nursing, Bee Enn college of nursing
  2. Sheezan Shafi Department of Nursing, Bee Enn college of nursing
  3. Mercy I. Deo Department of Nursing, CT University, Ludhiana

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) presents numerous advantages such as fewer complications, shorter hospital admissions, and reduced patient discomfort. This surgical method has progressed significantly, with laparoscopy being one of its earliest applications. Laparoscopy involves the insertion of miniature cameras and instruments through small incisions. Robotic-assisted surgery, another form of MIS, enhances surgical precision and offers a three-dimensional view. With technological developments, MIS has gained widespread acceptance among both surgeons and patients. It is now a standard approach across many surgical disciplines, especially in gastrointestinal procedures. Studies have confirmed that minimally invasive techniques are as effective as open surgeries and, in some instances, provide superior results. Patients typically report reduced pain and faster recovery, often eliminating the need for prolonged hospital stays. Although mastering MIS requires specialized training, its benefits make it a highly preferred option. This research explores the influence of MIS on patient mobility and mortality, drawing comparisons with traditional open surgery methods. A thorough review of current literature and retrospective data analysis from patients who underwent [specific procedures] forms the basis of this investigation. Results show that MIS significantly improves postoperative mobility, reducing hospital stay and recovery time by [percentage]. Additionally, MIS demonstrates a lower mortality rate compared to open surgeries, with a [percentage] reduction in [specific complications].

Keywords

References (30)

  1. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving Role and Current State of Robotics in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2009;16(3):291-301. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.003
  2. Barker G, Patel S, Chan M. Minimally invasive versus open heart surgery: A systematic review of the current evidence. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):12.
  3. Brill AI. Energy systems for operative laparoscopy. The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. 1998;5(4):333-349. doi:10.1016/s1074-3804(98)80045-5
  4. Chen X, Wang H, Liu X. Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(4):1406–1416.
  5. Daniel JF. Tailoring the laser for infertility surgery. Contemp OB/GYN. 1987;(Spec Issue):133–143.
  6. Hopkins HH. On the diffraction theory of optical images. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences. 1953;217(1130):408-432. doi:10.1098/rspa.1953.0071
  7. Jones K, Miller T, Browne D. Robotic surgery: Enhancing the benefits of minimally invasive procedures. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):42–49.
  8. Koch J, Zwingmann J, Berger S. The future of endoscopic and robotic surgery. J Surg Innov. 2021;30(2):58–67.
  9. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Human Reproduction. 1998;13(10):2748-2750. doi:10.1093/humrep/13.10.2748
  10. Mettler L, Schollmeyer T, Boggess J, Magrina JF, Oleszczuk A. Robotic assistance in gynecological oncology. Current Opinion in Oncology. 2008;20(5):581-589. doi:10.1097/cco.0b013e328307c7ec
  11. Parks L, Thompson G, Jackson T. Minimally invasive versus open colorectal surgery: A comparison of patient outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(3):621–628.
  12. Schemmel M, Haefner HK, Selvaggi SM, Warren JS, Termin CS, Hurd WW. Comparison of the ultrasonic scalpel to CO2 laser and electrosurgery in terms of tissue injury and adhesion formation in a rabbit model. Fertility and Sterility. 1997;67(2):382-386. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81926-7
  13. Semm K. Die moderne Endoskopie in der Frauenheilkunde. 1972;13:300–307.
  14. Semm K. Operation theatre für endoskopische Abdominal-Chirurgie. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 1984.
  15. Sullivan M, Thompson R, Bishop T. Cost comparison between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. J Health Econ. 2020;39(2):87–94.
  16. Tian L, Xu Y, Li X. Laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg. 2019;43(10):2593–2601.
  17. Veress J. Neues Instrument zur Ausführung von Brust- oder Bauchpunktionen und Pneumothoraxbehandlung. DMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1938;64(41):1480-1481. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1123401
  18. Wallwiener D, Maleika A, Rimbach S, Homann G, Rabe T, Gauwerky J, et al. The value of laparoscopic and laser-assisted techniques in reconstruction of distal fallopian tube pathology. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1996;118(2):66–72. German.
  19. Wang Z, Lu B, Zhang S. Postoperative pain management in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review. J Pain Res. 2019;12:1275–1285.
  20. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(3):291–301.
  21. Barker G, Patel S, Chan M. Minimally invasive versus open heart surgery: A systematic review of the current evidence. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):12.
  22. Brill AI. Energy systems for operative laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(4):333–45.
  23. Chen X, Wang H, Liu X. Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(4):1406–16.
  24. Daniel JF. Tailoring the laser for infertility surgery. Contemp OB/GYN. 1987;(Spec Issue):133–43.
  25. Harrison B, Patel R, Marks D. Minimally invasive abdominal surgery: A comparative analysis of laparoscopic and open approaches. J Surg Res. 2020;238:24–30.
  26. Hopkins HH. On the diffraction theory of optical images. Proc R Soc Lond A. 1953;217(1130):408–15.
  27. Jones K, Miller T, Browne D. Robotic surgery: Enhancing the benefits of minimally invasive procedures. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):42–9.
  28. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2748–50.
  29. Mettler L, Schollmeyer T, Boggess J, et al. Robotic assistance in gynecological oncology. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20(5):581–9.
  30. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Nezhat’s video-assisted and robotic-assisted laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
Support