Main Article Content
Background: The newly robotic surgery was implemented in Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital in the year 2013. Perioperative complications related to robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery during the learning curve was study.
Objective: To study retrospectively regarding perioperative complications associated with robot assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for pelvic cavity during learning period since May to August 2003.
Methods: To collect data respectively, 27 cases underwent robot assisted laparoscopic surgery for pelvic cavity during May to August 2013. All of patients were proper preoperative evaluation and preparation. Blood component was prepared preoperatively. All of them was admitted to ICU or step down ward postoperatively except one male and two females were observed at ward. They were discharged home and came back to be fellow-up as scheduled.
Results: There were 27 cases underwent RALS. Two of them were females, diagnosed as infertility underwent gynecological surgical mean age of 36.5 years, operative time 187.5 minutes, took 2.5 days for hospital stay. One of them was minute subcutaneous emphysema and could be discharged on the third postoperative day. Twenty five patients were male underwent urological surgery. Diagnosis were prostatic cancer twenty three cases, one was carcinoma of bladder, the other was right renal stone. The result showed that subcutaneous emphysema was common complications. Two cases had ileus. The great complication was massive bleeding. None of them was converted to open surgery nor came back for reopening. No perioperative mortality found.
Conclusions: Perioperative complications related to robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery for pelvic cavity during early experience of surgical team was relatively rare. The complications rather were related to associated underlying disease of the patient.
2. Sullivan MJ, Frost EAM, Jew MW. Anesthetic care of the patient for robotic surgery. MEJ Anesth. 2008;19:967-982.
3. Lasser MS1, Renzulli J 2nd, Turini GA 3rd, Haleblian G, Sax HC, Pareek G. An unbiased prospective report of perioperative complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;75:1083-1089.
4. Raman JD, Dong S, Levinson A, Samadi D, Scherr DS. Robotic radical prostatectomy: operative technique, outcomes, and learning curve. JSLS. 2007;11(1):1-7.
5. Srinualnad S. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy without proctorship: early experience of the first series in Asia. Thai J Surg. 2008;29:1-5.
6. Irvine M, Patil V. Anaesthesia for robot assisted laparoscopic surgery. Continuing Education in Anesthesia Critical Care & Pain. 2009;9:125-129.
7. Baltayian S. A brief review: anesthesia for robotic prostatectomy. J Robotic Surg. 2008;2:59-66.
8. Gainsburg DM. Anesthetic concerns for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(5):596-604.
9. Lestar M, Gunnarsson L, Lagerstrand L, Wiklund P, Odeberg-Wernerman S. Hemodynamic perturbations during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 45° Trendelenburg position. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(5):1069-1075. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182075d1f.
10. Awad H, Santilli S, Ohr M, et al. The effects of steep trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):473-478. doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181a9098f.
11. Benerjee K, ZdravKa Z, Tung A. Corneal abrasions during laparoscopic prostatectomy: mechanisms and prevention. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:A761.
12. Chang CH, Lee HK, Nam SH. The displacement of the tracheal tube during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27(5):478-480. doi:10.1097/EJA.0b013e328333d587.