Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.1
3.0
Journals
JPM
Special Issues
Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology: Second Edition
share announcement

Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology: Second Edition

A special issue of Journal of Personalized Medicine (ISSN 2075-4426). This special issue belongs to the section "Methodology, Drug and Device Discovery".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 25 October 2024 | Viewed by 2644

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Tae-Joong Kim

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Cancer Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea
Interests: gynecologic cancers; single-port surgery; natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES); robotic surgery; image-guided surgery; lymphatic mapping; innovative techniques
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Dr. Valerio Gallotta

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Gynecologic Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy
Interests: cervical cancer; minimally invasive surgery; fertility sparing treatments; translational medicine; sentinel lymph node concept; gynecological cancers
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Since the introduction of laparoscopy, remarkable achievements have been made in the field of gynecologic surgery, the impact of which cannot be overemphasized.

This Special Issue of the Journal of Personalized Medicine, ‘Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology Second Edition’, aims to collate papers on the most advanced and cutting-edge innovations in the landscape of gynecologic surgery. We cordially invite submissions of manuscripts that reflect both practical and technical innovations and expertise in this field. Potential topics include, but not limited to, the following:

  • Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery;
  • Ultra-minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery;
  • Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS);
  • Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery;
  • Reduced port surgery;
  • Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES);
  • 3D laparoscopic surgery;
  • Sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy;
  • Tactile sensing laparoscopic surgery;
  • Augmented reality (AR) visualization laparoscopic surgery;
  • Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound.

Dr. Tae-Joong Kim
Dr. Valerio Gallotta
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Personalized Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery
  • ultra-minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery
  • single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS)
  • robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery
  • reduced port surgery
  • vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES)
  • 3D laparoscopic surgery
  • sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy
  • tactile sensing laparoscopic surgery
  • augmented reality (AR) visualization laparoscopic surgery
  • laparoscopic ultrasound

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

10 pages, 1780 KiB  
Article
Learning Curve Analysis of Single-Incision Ovarian Cystectomy: Comparative Study of Robotic and Conventional Laparoscopic Techniques
by Seongmin Kim, Seon-Mi Lee, Aeran Seol, Sanghoon Lee, Jae-Yun Song, Jae-Kwan Lee and Nak-Woo Lee
J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14(8), 785; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14080785 - 24 Jul 2024
Viewed by 389
Abstract
Ovarian cystectomy, aimed at preserving fertility, has advanced through minimally invasive surgical techniques. This study evaluates the learning curves and surgical outcomes of three such approaches: DaVinci Robotic Single-Site (RSS), DaVinci Robotic Single-Port (RSP), and laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). To analyze the learning [...] Read more.
Ovarian cystectomy, aimed at preserving fertility, has advanced through minimally invasive surgical techniques. This study evaluates the learning curves and surgical outcomes of three such approaches: DaVinci Robotic Single-Site (RSS), DaVinci Robotic Single-Port (RSP), and laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). To analyze the learning curves and surgical outcomes for these techniques, providing insights into their effectiveness and proficiency development. Retrospective analysis of 104 patients with ovarian tumors, divided into RSS (n = 52), RSP (n = 22), and LESS (n = 30) groups. Metrics analyzed included age, BMI, tumor size, hemoglobin drop, operative time, docking time, console time, and tumor location. No significant differences in age, BMI, transfusion rate, hemoglobin drop, or length of stay were found among the groups. RSS had larger tumors on average, and LESS had a higher occurrence rate on the right side. LESS demonstrated the shortest operative time, while RSS and RSP had comparable times. Docking and console times did not differ significantly between RSS and RSP. RSP reached proficiency faster than RSS in docking and console times, while LESS exhibited the greatest variability in operative time. RSP offers a faster and more consistent learning curve, making it advantageous for complex procedures, whereas LESS provides shorter operative times but with higher variability. These findings are crucial for surgical training and resource allocation in medical institutions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology: Second Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 1113 KiB  
Article
Efficacy of Single- and Dual-Docking Robotic Surgery of Paraaortic and Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer
by Magdalena Bizoń, Maciej Olszewski, Agnieszka Grabowska, Joanna Siudek, Krzysztof Mawlichanów and Radovan Pilka
J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14(5), 441; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14050441 - 23 Apr 2024
Viewed by 960
Abstract
(1) The surgical method of choice for the treatment of endometrial cancer is minimally invasive surgery. In cases of high-risk endometrial cancer, completed paraaortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy are indicated. The aim of this study was to analyze the types of docking during robotic [...] Read more.
(1) The surgical method of choice for the treatment of endometrial cancer is minimally invasive surgery. In cases of high-risk endometrial cancer, completed paraaortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy are indicated. The aim of this study was to analyze the types of docking during robotic surgery assisted with the da Vinci X system while performing paraaortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy. (2) Methods: A total of 25 patients with high-risk endometrial cancer, with a mean age of 60.07 ± 10.67 (range 34.69–83.23) years, and with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.4 ± 5.62 (range 18–41.5) kg/m2, were included in this study. The analyzed population was divided into groups that underwent single or dual docking during surgery. (3) Results: No statistical significance was observed between single and dual docking during paraaortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy and between the type of docking and the duration of the operation. However, there was a statistically significant correlation between the duration of the operation and previous surgery (p < 0.005). The number of removed lymph nodes was statistically associated with BMI (p < 0.005): 15.87 ± 6.83 and 24.5 ± 8.7 for paraaortic and pelvic lymph nodes, respectively, in cases of single docking, and 18.05 ± 7.92 and 24.88 ± 11.75 for paraaortic and pelvic lymph nodes, respectively, in cases of dual docking. (4) Conclusions: The robot-assisted approach is a good surgical method for lymphadenectomy for obese patients, and, despite the type of docking, there are no differences in the quality of surgery. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology: Second Edition)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 233 KiB  
Article
Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Two New Techniques Complementing Robotic Single-Site Myomectomy: Coaxial Robotic Single-Site Myomectomy vs. Hybrid Robotic Single-Site Myomectomy
by Nara Lee, Su-Hyeon Choi, Seyeon Won, Yong-Wook Jung, Seung-Hyun Kim, Jin-Yu Lee, Chul-Kwon Lim, Jung-Bo Yang, Joong-Gyu Ha and Seok-Ju Seong
J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14(4), 439; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14040439 - 22 Apr 2024
Viewed by 882
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between two new robotic single-site myomectomy (RSSM)-complementary techniques: coaxial robotic single-site myomectomy (Coaxial-RSSM) and hybrid robotic single-site myomectomy (Hybrid-RSSM). Methods: Medical records for 132 women undergoing Coaxial-RSSM and 150 undergoing Hybrid-RSSM, consecutively, were retrospectively reviewed. [...] Read more.
Background: This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between two new robotic single-site myomectomy (RSSM)-complementary techniques: coaxial robotic single-site myomectomy (Coaxial-RSSM) and hybrid robotic single-site myomectomy (Hybrid-RSSM). Methods: Medical records for 132 women undergoing Coaxial-RSSM and 150 undergoing Hybrid-RSSM, consecutively, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were assessed and compared after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: In the outcomes of PSM, the Coaxial-RSSM group showed significantly reduced blood loss (79.71 vs. 163.75 mL, p < 0.001) and reduced hospital duration (4.18 ± 0.62 vs. 4.63 ± 0.90) relative to the Hybrid-RSSM group. Conversely, Hybrid-RSSM allowed for a shorter operative time compared with Coaxial-RSSM (119.19 vs. 156.01 min, p = 0.007). No conversions to conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy or any need for the multi-site robotic approach occurred in either group. Postoperative complications, including ileus, fever, and wound dehiscence, showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Conclusions: Blood loss was lower with Coaxial-RSSM, and operative time was shorter for Hybrid-RSSM. A follow-up prospective study is warranted for more comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes between the two techniques. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecology: Second Edition)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop