Small Animal Laparoscopy and Thoracoscopy. Группа авторов

handles. (E). The black button on the handle (black arrow) is pushed by simulaneus pressure applied on the blue buttons until the red marks are no longer visible, which engages the needle. The blue button is used for toggling the needle from jaw to jaw during suturing by pressing one at a time (red arrow). (F). Tension on the suture during removal from the cartridge, and while suturing, is applied with the needle stabilized by both jaws.

References

      1 1 Wolfe, B.M., Szabo, Z., Moran, M.E. et al. (1993). Training for minimally invasive surgery. Need for surgical skills. Surg. Endosc. 7: 93–95.

      2 2 Soper, N.J. and Hunter, J.G. (1992). Suturing and knot tying in laparoscopy. Surg. Clin. North Am. 72: 1139–1152.

      3 3 Kenngott, H.G., Muller‐Stich, B.P., Reiter, M.A. et al. (2008). Robotic suturing: technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 17: 160–167.

      4 4 Kaan, H.L. and Ho, K.Y. (2019). Endoscopic robotic suturing: the way forward. Saudi J. Gastroenterol. 25: 272–276.

      5 5 Tuncel, A., Lucas, S., Bensalah, K. et al. (2008). A randomized comparison of conventional vs articulating laparoscopic needle‐drivers for performing standardized suturing tasks by laparoscopy‐naive subjects. BJU Int. 101: 727–730.

      6 6 Ramani, A.P., Braasch, M., Botnaru, A. et al. (2008). Evaluation of efficacy of four laparoscopic needle drivers. JSLS 12: 77–80.

      7 7 Tidwell, J.E., Kish, V.L., Samora, J.B. et al. (2012). Knot security: how many throws does it really take? Orthopedics 35: e532–e537.

      8 8 Kadirkamanathan, S.S., Shelton, J.C., Hepworth, C.C. et al. (1996). A comparison of the strength of knots tied by hand and at laparoscopy. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 182: 46–54.

      9 9 Muffly, T., McCormick, T.C., Dean, J. et al. (2009). An evaluation of knot integrity when tied robotically and conventionally. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 200: e18–e20.

      10 10 Shatkin‐Margolis, A., Kow, N., Patonai, N. et al. (2015). The effect of an air knot on surgical knot integrity. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 21: 160–163.

      11 11 Arbaugh, M., Case, J.B., and Monnet, E. (2013). Biomechanical comparison of glycomer 631 and glycomer 631 knotless for use in canine incisional gastropexy. Vet. Surg. 42: 205–209.

      12 12 Vakil, J.J., O'Reilly, M.P., Sutter, E.G. et al. (2011). Knee arthrotomy repair with a continuous barbed suture: a biomechanical study. J. Arthroplast. 26: 710–713.

      13 13 Zaruby, J., Gingras, K., Taylor, J. et al. (2011). An in vivo comparison of barbed suture devices and conventional monofilament sutures for cosmetic skin closure: biomechanical wound strength and histology. Aesthet. Surg. J. 31: 232–240.

      14 14 Brody, F., Rehm, J., Ponsky, J. et al. (1999). A reliable and efficient technique for laparoscopic needle positioning. Surg. Endosc. 13: 1053–1054.

      15 15 Szabo, Z., Hunter, J., Berci, G. et al. (1994). Analysis of surgical movements during suturing in laparoscopy. Endosc. Surg. Allied Technol. 2: 55–61.

      16 16 Szabo, Z. (2008). Laparoscopic Suturing System with Szabo‐Berci Needle Driver Set. Tuttlingen, Germany: Karl Storz GmbH & Co.

      17 17 Shettko, D.L., Frisbie, D.D., and Hendrickson, D.A. (2004). A comparison of knot security of commonly used hand‐tied laparoscopic slipknots. Vet. Surg. 33: 521–524.

      18 18 Fugazzi, R.W., Fransson, B.A., Curran, K.M. et al. (2013). A biomechanical study of laparoscopic 4S‐modified Roeder and Weston knot strength in 3‐0 polyglactin 910 and 3‐0 polydioxanone. Vet. Surg. 42: 198–204.

      19 19 Ragle, C.A. and Schneider, R.K. (1995). Ventral abdominal approach for laparoscopic ovariectomy in horses. Vet. Surg. 24: 492–497.

      20 20 Gantert, W.A., Bhoyrul, S., and Way, L.W. (2008). Suturing and knot tying. In: Advanced Videoscopic Surgery for the General Surgeon (ed. L.W. Way). San Francisco, CA: University of California San Francisco.

      21 21 Adams, J.B., Schulam, P.G., Moore, R.G. et al. (1995). New laparoscopic suturing device: initial clinical experience. Urology 46: 242–245.

      22 22 Stringer, N.H. (1996). Laparoscopic myomectomy with the endo stitch 10‐mm laparoscopic suturing device. J. Am. Assoc. Gynecol. Laparosc. 3: 299–303.

      23 23 Nguyen, N.T., Mayer, K.L., Bold, R.J. et al. (2000). Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J. Surg. Res. 93: 133–136.

      24 24 Pattaras, J.G., Smith, G.S., Landman, J. et al. (2001). Comparison and analysis of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices: preliminary results. J. Endourol. 15: 187–192.

      25 25 Omotosho, P., Yurcisin, B., Ceppa, E. et al. (2011). in vivo assessment of an absorbable and nonabsorbable knotless barbed suture for laparoscopic single‐layer enterotomy closure: a clinical and biomechanical comparison against nonbarbed suture. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 21: 893–897.

      26 26 Akers, R.N. and Naumann, R.W. (2010). Laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure comparing endostitch to the RD‐180. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 17: S76–S77.

      27 27 Coleman, K.A., Adams, S., Smeak, D.D. et al. (2016). Laparoscopic gastropexy using knotless unidirectional suture and an articulated endoscopic suturing device: seven cases. Vet. Surg. 45: O95–O101.

      28 28 Coleman, K.A. and Monnet, E. (2017). Comparison of laparoscopic gastropexy performed via intracorporeal suturing with knotless unidirectional barbed suture using a needle driver versus a roticulated endoscopic suturing device: 30 cases. Vet. Surg. 46: 1002–1007.

      29 29 Brehmer, B., Moll, C., Makris, A. et al. (2008). Endosew: new device for laparoscopic running sutures. J. Endourol. 22: 307–311.

      30 30 Martinschek, A., Ritter, M., Heinrich, E., and Trojan, L. (2017). Robot‐assisted laparoscopic suturing of a U‐shaped ileal neobladder with ENDOSEW. Videourology 31 http://doi.org/10.1089/vid.2017.0015.

Section II Equipment

3 Imaging Equipment and Operating Room Set‐Up

       Fausto Brandão and Christopher Chamness

      Key Points

       Full HD (High Definition) is now the standard in veterinary video‐assisted surgery, which is defined as 1920 × 1080 pixels, currently provided with the latest generation CMOS chip cameras.

       The “minimally invasive” concept has led to the introduction of miniature scopes and needlescopes into the field of small animal MIS with proven reduced morbidity.

       Digital contrast technologies and tissue‐targeted dying technologies such as ICG (indocyanine green) fluorescence yield increased accuracy for refined and advanced minimally invasive procedures enabling higher detail visual perception of living tissues.

       Integration platforms and converging MIS technologies enable the control of multimodal systems from a single screen for operator ease.

Imaging Equipment

      While veterinary surgeons have defined and implemented the major trends and achievements in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) over the past 20 years, the development of specialized techniques and instrumentation made it possible for professionals to enhance the accuracy and complexity of the procedures. Over these two decades, many veterinary practices and hospitals implemented new standards of surgical care and realized the benefits associated with video‐assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgeries, utilizing those techniques on a regular basis, despite previous objections to high economic investment. The goal of this chapter is to update and familiarize practitioners with currently available technologies for a fully equipped and integrated