ADVANCEMENTS IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE TECHNIQUES: EXPLORING THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF LAPAROSCOPIC AND ROBOTIC SURGERIES IN CHILDREN
Keywords:
Key words: Pediatric surgery, minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, surgical outcomes, children, postoperative recovery, technological advancements, cost-effectiveness, surgical innovation.Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has revolutionized pediatric surgical care by offering reduced trauma, faster recovery, and improved aesthetic outcomes compared to open procedures. This study explores recent advancements in laparoscopic and robotic surgeries in children, focusing on their clinical effectiveness, challenges, and statistical outcomes. A retrospective review of 4,240 pediatric cases revealed that while laparoscopy remains the predominant technique, robotic surgery is gaining traction due to its superior precision and ergonomic advantages. Despite longer operative times and higher costs, robotic-assisted procedures demonstrated lower complication rates, reduced postoperative pain, and greater parental satisfaction. These findings underscore the growing role of robotic surgery in complex pediatric cases and highlight the need for continued innovation and training in minimally invasive techniques.
References
1. Esposito, C., Settimi, A., Escolino, M., Turrà, F., Cerulo, M., & Farina, A. (2019). Robotic versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 15(5), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.04.010
2. Saxena, A. K., & Willital, G. H. (2011). Robotic surgery in children: Current status and future perspectives. European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 21(6), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1291374
3. Andolfi, C., & Gundeti, M. S. (2017). Robotic surgery in pediatric urology: Current status and future perspectives. Indian Journal of Urology, 33(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.IJU_326_16
4. Kutikov, A., Guzzo, T. J., Canter, D. J., & Uzzo, R. G. (2009). The robotic approach to pediatric urologic surgery: A review. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 3(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-008-0108-2
5. Samer, A. M., & El-Ghoneimi, A. (2015). Laparoscopic and robotic surgery in pediatric urology: A critical appraisal. Arab Journal of Urology, 13(2), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.03.006
6. Van der Zee, D. C., & Bax, K. M. A. (2007). Laparoscopic surgery in infants and children. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 19(3), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e32814b0f2e
7. Baek, M., & Park, K. (2019). Current status and future perspectives of robotic surgery in pediatric patients. Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery, 22(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2019.22.1.1
8. Lee, R. S., Retik, A. B., Borer, J. G., & Peters, C. A. (2006). Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Comparison with a cohort of open surgery. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2(6), 497–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.06.003
9. Kumar, R., & Jayanthi, V. R. (2015). Robotic surgery in pediatric urology: Current status and future directions. Indian Journal of Urology, 31(1), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.137202
10. Soler, R., & Fullwood, E. (2018). Robotic surgery in pediatric urology: A review. Translational Andrology and Urology, 7(6), 882–889. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2018.09.13
