Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2020

01-06-2020 | Minimally Invasive Surgery | Original Article

Considerations regarding pain management and anesthesiological aspects in pediatric patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery: robotic vs laparoscopic–thoracoscopic approach

Authors: Francesco Molinaro, Pranvera Krasniqi, Sabino Scolletta, Laura Giuntini, Cristina Navarra, Rosa Puzzutiello, Giulia Fusi, Rossella Angotti, Edoardo Bindi, Clelia Zanaboni, Mario Messina, Girolamo Mattioli

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

In the last decade, the applicability of robotic surgery has been demonstrated in many interventions, expanding the indications of minimally invasive surgery also to pediatrics. The aim of the study is to evaluate postoperative pain to demonstrate better control following robotic procedures compared to thoraco–laparoscopic surgery. An observational, retrospective, multicentre study was performed involving 204 children undergoing robot-assisted surgery and thoraco/laparoscopic surgery at the Istituto Giannina Gaslini in Genoa and the Siena University Hospital (2013–2017): 83 children underwent robotic-assisted surgery and 121 thoracic–laparoscopic surgery. Personal data and type of intervention were assessed, dividing the patients into four categories: thoracic, gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary and urological surgeries. We analyzed the anesthetic risk according to ASA classification by type of intervention, the type of anesthesia used, the anesthetic drugs used during surgery and in the postoperative period. Both the problems that occurred during the procedures and the number of interventions converted into open during robotic surgery and laparoscopic thoracic surgery were analyzed. Pain was measured on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day (FLACC or NRS scales). By comparing the two groups (robotics–non-robotics), the analysis shows that postoperative pain does not change with the chosen approach, but always maintains very low values, typical of minimally invasive surgery. The pain score is significantly higher in patients undergoing thoracic surgery, either robotic or thoracoscopic, compared to those undergoing gastrointestinal surgery (P corrected according to Bonferroni: 0.0006) and those undergoing urological intervention (P corrected according to Bonferroni: 0.04). In conclusion, no significant change in the intensity of postoperative pain between the two groups was found, while it is seen that the pain in patients undergoing thoracic interventions (robotic/thoracoscopic) is more intense than that reported for other types of interventions.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jackson HT, Kane TD (2014) Advanced in minimally invasive surgery in pediatric patient. Adv Pediatr 61(1):149–195CrossRef Jackson HT, Kane TD (2014) Advanced in minimally invasive surgery in pediatric patient. Adv Pediatr 61(1):149–195CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Cundy TP, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Khurana S, Darzi A (2015) Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss? Pediatr Surg Int 12:1119–1125CrossRef Cundy TP, Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Khurana S, Darzi A (2015) Robotic surgery in children: adopt now, await, or dismiss? Pediatr Surg Int 12:1119–1125CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chaussy Y, Becmeur F, Lardy H, Aubert D (2013) Robotic-assisted surgery: current status evaluation in abdominal and urological pediatric surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(6):530–538CrossRef Chaussy Y, Becmeur F, Lardy H, Aubert D (2013) Robotic-assisted surgery: current status evaluation in abdominal and urological pediatric surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(6):530–538CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Boysen WR, Gundeti MS (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants. Pediatr Surg Int 33:925–935CrossRef Boysen WR, Gundeti MS (2017) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants. Pediatr Surg Int 33:925–935CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Bansal D, Cost NG, De Floor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Vanderbrink BA, Alam S, Sheldon CA, Noh PH (2013) Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol 10(2):380–385CrossRef Bansal D, Cost NG, De Floor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Vanderbrink BA, Alam S, Sheldon CA, Noh PH (2013) Infant robotic pyeloplasty: comparison with an open cohort. J Pediatr Urol 10(2):380–385CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Howe A, Kozel Z, Palmer L (2017) Robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Asian J Urol 1:55–67CrossRef Howe A, Kozel Z, Palmer L (2017) Robotic surgery in pediatric urology. Asian J Urol 1:55–67CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Chana YY, Durbin-Johnsonb B, Sturma RM, Kurzrock EA (2017) Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatr Urol 13(1):49.e1–49.e6CrossRef Chana YY, Durbin-Johnsonb B, Sturma RM, Kurzrock EA (2017) Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatr Urol 13(1):49.e1–49.e6CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bansal D, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2013) Complications of robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a single institution experience. Urology 82(4):917–920CrossRef Bansal D, Defoor WR, Reddy PP, Minevich EA, Noh PH (2013) Complications of robotic surgery in pediatric urology: a single institution experience. Urology 82(4):917–920CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sullivan MJ, Frost EAM, Lew MW (2008) Anesthestic care of the patient for robotic surgery. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 19(5):967–982PubMed Sullivan MJ, Frost EAM, Lew MW (2008) Anesthestic care of the patient for robotic surgery. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 19(5):967–982PubMed
10.
go back to reference Harel M, Herbst KW, Silvis R, Makari JH, Ferrer FA, Kim C (2015) Objective pain assessment after ureteral reimplantation: comparison of open versus robotic approach. J Pediatr Urol 11(2):82.e1–82.e8CrossRef Harel M, Herbst KW, Silvis R, Makari JH, Ferrer FA, Kim C (2015) Objective pain assessment after ureteral reimplantation: comparison of open versus robotic approach. J Pediatr Urol 11(2):82.e1–82.e8CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Muñoz CJ, Nguyen HT, Houck CS (2016) Robotic surgery and anesthesia for pediatric urologic procedures. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 29(3):337–344CrossRef Muñoz CJ, Nguyen HT, Houck CS (2016) Robotic surgery and anesthesia for pediatric urologic procedures. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 29(3):337–344CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mattioli G, Molinaro F, Paraboschi I, Leonelli L, Mazzola C, Arrigo S, Mancardi M, Pini Prato A, Angotti R, Mario Messina M, Bianchi A (2017) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive total esophagogastric dissociation for children with severe neurodisability. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27(5):550–555CrossRef Mattioli G, Molinaro F, Paraboschi I, Leonelli L, Mazzola C, Arrigo S, Mancardi M, Pini Prato A, Angotti R, Mario Messina M, Bianchi A (2017) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive total esophagogastric dissociation for children with severe neurodisability. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 27(5):550–555CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Considerations regarding pain management and anesthesiological aspects in pediatric patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery: robotic vs laparoscopic–thoracoscopic approach
Authors
Francesco Molinaro
Pranvera Krasniqi
Sabino Scolletta
Laura Giuntini
Cristina Navarra
Rosa Puzzutiello
Giulia Fusi
Rossella Angotti
Edoardo Bindi
Clelia Zanaboni
Mario Messina
Girolamo Mattioli
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01005-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2020 Go to the issue