FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4382626781> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4382626781 endingPage "e282" @default.
• W4382626781 startingPage "e282" @default.
• W4382626781 abstract "In this current issue, an article by Dr. Fong et al.1 describes the technical details for the routine use of pancreatoscopy during robotic pancreas surgery for main duct assessment in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a revolutionary technology that offers new possibilities for performing complex surgeries, including pancreaticoduodenectomy and other pancreatic resections.2 The routine use of robotics in pancreatic surgery has steadily increased over the past decade and has been widely disseminated throughout the world.3 The technology and toolset associated with robotic surgery have many advantages over previous minimally-invasive approaches however, one clear deficit of robotic-assisted surgery is the lack of haptic feedback. This limitation is overcome by rigorous surgeon training, improved visualization, and high-quality patient imaging. Preoperative cross-sectional imaging is standard for all pancreatic resections but high-quality intraoperative assessments specifically in robotic surgery with the use of a drop-in ultrasound probe can be just as critical. The authors here provide another method for intraoperative visualization with the novel use of pancreatoscopy to visualize the lumen of the pancreatic duct during surgery. Patients undergoing surgery for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm can have margin positive resections in up to 20% of resections.4,5 Although we know that separate lesions arising within the “field defect” are more problematic than low-grade margin positivity postoperatively,6 a margin negative resection remains the primary objective of surgery. The use of intraoperative pancreatoscopy during robotic pancreas resection for margin assessment is an attractive use of this technology. It allows for a rapid and direct assessment of the pancreatic duct and determination of a clean transection plane when we would otherwise rely on preoperative imaging, anatomic landmarks, and occasionally intraoperative ultrasound. Additionally, there is another more common clinical scenario to consider, which is the extent of ductal dilation present beyond the neck in a proximal lesion or extension into the neck/head for left-sided lesions that with conventional imaging would portend a more extended resection. The robotic platform and intraoperative pancreatoscopy could be incorporated in this setting to determine if a standard resection is feasible and appropriate. Any additional parenchyma spared could have an immediate quality of life impact on the patient. A word of caution should be exercised whenever the implementation of new technology is considered. Although the reported benefits of pancreatoscopy are outlined within the article, one must also consider the converse. Specifically, in the setting of a false positive finding on pancreatoscopy leading to a more extensive resection and potentially adding to the short- and long-term morbidity associated with the surgery. The metrics of this test, including sensitivity/specificity, number needed to treat, etc, should be understood before widespread adoption ensues. Additionally, the cost and access to the technology must be considered. The proposed method requires the use of a single-use disposable scope as well as the expertise of an advanced endoscopist to interpret the images of the duct. Both of these requirements result in a high cost of entry for routine intraoperative pancreatoscopy and may be prohibitive in many settings. Fortunately, some of these questions/concerns are already being addressed with the ongoing proposed trial cited by the authors and they should be applauded for seeking these answers. Like any new technological advancement, the key here will be understanding the right time and place for intraoperative pancreatoscopy." @default.
• W4382626781 created "2023-06-30" @default.
• W4382626781 creator A5035045562 @default.
• W4382626781 date "2023-05-05" @default.
• W4382626781 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4382626781 title "A Growing Armamentarium for the Robotic Pancreas Surgeon?" @default.
• W4382626781 cites W2045809291 @default.
• W4382626781 cites W2050135237 @default.
• W4382626781 cites W2885404314 @default.
• W4382626781 cites W2947565170 @default.
• W4382626781 cites W3017385753 @default.
• W4382626781 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/as9.0000000000000282" @default.
• W4382626781 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37601480" @default.
• W4382626781 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4382626781 type Work @default.
• W4382626781 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4382626781 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4382626781 hasAuthorship W4382626781A5035045562 @default.
• W4382626781 hasBestOaLocation W43826267811 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C103203806 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C159110652 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C2776469228 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C2778764654 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C2778975757 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C2779960720 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C103203806 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C126322002 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C126838900 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C141071460 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C159110652 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C2775967933 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C2776469228 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C2778764654 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C2778975757 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C2779960720 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C61434518 @default.
• W4382626781 hasConceptScore W4382626781C71924100 @default.
• W4382626781 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4382626781 hasLocation W43826267811 @default.
• W4382626781 hasLocation W43826267812 @default.
• W4382626781 hasLocation W43826267813 @default.
• W4382626781 hasOpenAccess W4382626781 @default.
• W4382626781 hasPrimaryLocation W43826267811 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2025835693 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2039393602 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2412188799 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2415740252 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2468889651 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2531081631 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W2894760939 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W3096989529 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W3199090967 @default.
• W4382626781 hasRelatedWork W4322492053 @default.
• W4382626781 hasVolume "4" @default.
• W4382626781 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4382626781 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4382626781 workType "article" @default.