Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Technological Advances in Surgery, Trauma and Critical Care pp 363–375Cite as

Laparoscopic Approaches in General Surgery: Is There Anything New?

  • Chapter

  • 2116 Accesses

Abstract

Laparoscopic surgery has been one of the major advances in recent surgical history. The ability to perform complex operations through small incisions resulting in improved recovery has made laparoscopy a mainstay for many general surgical procedures. Although laparoscopic surgery has been a major advance, surgeons have not remained idle and have continued to strive for decreased tissue trauma and quicker recoveries and have even invented alternative means of access to the abdominal cavity and are using new instruments and tools that allow increasingly complex surgery to be performed via minimally invasive means.

This chapter presents an overview of some of the new technology and procedures that are currently been performed or are in the early phase of preclinic and clinical evaluation including single incision surgery, robotic surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and needlescopic surgery. The future of surgery will likely involve technology or procedures related to all of these innovative procedures, and surgeons should embrace these technologies while maintaining a healthy skepticism and ensuring safety for patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ahmad G, O’Flynn H, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2, CD006583.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moloo H, Haggar F, Coyle D, Hutton B, Duhaime S, Mamazza J, et al. Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10, CD006585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aalbers AG, Doeksen A, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(4):287–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sajid MS, Khan MA, Cheek E, Baig MK. Needlescopic versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review. Can J Surg. 2009;52(2):129–34.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sajid MS, Khan MA, Ray K, Cheek E, Baig MK. Needlescopic versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79(6):437–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee PC, Lai IR, Yu SC. Minilaparoscopic (needlescopic) cholecystectomy: a study of 1,011 cases. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(10):1480–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lai EC, Fok M, Chan AS. Needlescopic cholecystectomy: prospective study of 150 patients. Hong Kong Med J. 2003;9(4):238–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, et al. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2005;140(12):1178–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mostafa G, Matthews BD, Sing RF, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. Mini-laparoscopic versus laparoscopic approach to appendectomy. BMC Surg. 2001;1:4.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scott DJ, Tang SJ, Fernandez R, Bergs R, Goova MT, Zeltser I, et al. Completely transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy using magnetically anchored instruments. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(12):2308–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Auyang ED, Hungness ES, Vaziri K, Martin JA, Soper NJ. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): dissection for the critical view of safety during transcolonic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(5):1117–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Navarra G, Pozza E, Occhionorelli S, Carcoforo P, Donini I. One-wound laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84(5):695.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Horisberger K, Grossen E, Schob O. How to meet the challenge of flexible exposure of the Calot triangle in SILS cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22(2):e63–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rawlings A, Hodgett SE, Matthews BD, Strasberg SM, Quasebarth M, Brunt LM. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience with critical view of safety dissection and routine intraoperative cholangiography. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yeo D, Mackay S, Martin D. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with routine intraoperative cholangiography and common bile duct exploration via the umbilical port. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(4):1122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ross S, Rosemurgy A, Albrink M, Choung E, Dapri G, Gallagher S, et al. Consensus statement of the consortium for LESS cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(10):2711–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Garg P, Thakur JD, Garg M, Menon GR. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(8):1618–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Muirhead L, Kinross J, Paraskeva P. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) vs. conventional multiport cholecystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(5):1205–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jorgensen LN, Rosenberg J, Al-Tayar H, Assaadzadeh S, Helgstrand F, Bisgaard T. Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101(4):347–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Rossi M, Davidson BR. Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2, CD007109.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kroh M, El-Hayek K, Rosenblatt S, Chand B, Escobar P, Kaouk J, et al. First human surgery with a novel single-port robotic system: cholecystectomy using the da Vinci Single-Site platform. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(11):3566–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pietrabissa A, Sbrana F, Morelli L, Badessi F, Pugliese L, Vinci A, et al. Overcoming the challenges of single-incision cholecystectomy with robotic single-site technology. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):709–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morel P, Buchs NC, Iranmanesh P, Pugin F, Buehler L, Azagury DE, et al. Robotic single-site cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Spinoglio G, Lenti LM, Maglione V, Lucido FS, Priora F, Bianchi PP, et al. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(6):1648–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Lehman AC, Tsang AW, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D. In vivo miniature robots for natural orifice surgery: state of the art and future perspectives. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;2(6):217–23.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barzana DC, Kotwall CA, Clancy TV, Hope WW. Use of laparoscopy in trauma at a level II trauma center. JSLS. 2011;15(2):179–81.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin HF, Wu JM, Tu CC, Chen HA, Shih HC. Value of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for abdominal stab wounds. World J Surg. 2010;34(7):1653–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Hope has the following disclosures: research support, Ethicon, Inc.; honorarium, eMedicine; consultant, C.R. Bard.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, 2131 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC, 28401, USA

    Timothy G. Johnson M.D. & William W. Hope M.D.

Authors
  1. Timothy G. Johnson M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William W. Hope M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William W. Hope M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Rifat Latifi

  2. Department of Surgery, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Peter Rhee

  3. Department of Surgery, Professor of Surgery, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Rainer W.G. Gruessner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Johnson, T.G., Hope, W.W. (2015). Laparoscopic Approaches in General Surgery: Is There Anything New?. In: Latifi, R., Rhee, P., Gruessner, R. (eds) Technological Advances in Surgery, Trauma and Critical Care. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2671-8_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2671-8_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2670-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2671-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation