A Short Note on Robotic Surgery

Alireza Souri^*
*Correspondence: Alireza Souri, Department of Computer Engineering, Halic University, Istanbul, Turkey, Email:

Description

The 1990s have seen the purported laparoscopic transformation in which numerous tasks were adjusted from the conventional open a medical procedure to the negligible access technique. Shorter clinic stays, diminished postoperative torment, lower occurrence of wound diseases, and better surface level results have made tasks, for example, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the norm of care for cholelethiasis. Favorable outcomes provoked specialists to endeavor to foster negligibly obtrusive methods for most surgeries. Nonetheless, numerous complicated methods demonstrated hard to learn and to perform laparoscopically because of specialized constraints inborn in laparoscopic surgery. For instance, the camcorder held by the colleague was temperamental and gave a restricted 2-layered vision of the field, and the essential specialist had to embrace abnormal situations to work with straight laparoscopic instruments, restricting maneuvering [1].

Starting from the start of the 21^st hundred years, the rise of imaginative innovations made further advances in negligible access a medical procedure conceivable. Mechanical medical procedure and telepresence medical procedure really tended to the restrictions of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic systems, hence upsetting negligible access surgery. Robotic medical procedure is supposed to keep on containing a developing piece of surgery. Thus, automated a medical procedure won't just need exceptional preparation; it will likewise change the current careful preparation design and reshape the expectation to learn and adapt of occupants by offering new arrangements, like mechanical careful test systems and automated telementoring [2].

Although still in its early stages, mechanical medical procedure is a state of the art improvement in medical procedure that will have sweeping ramifications. While further developing accuracy and adroitness, this arising innovation permits specialists to perform tasks that were customarily not agreeable to negligible access methods. Subsequently, the advantages of negligible access a medical procedure might be relevant to a more extensive scope of techniques. Security has been deep rooted, and numerous series of cases have announced ideal results [3]. Notwithstanding, randomized, controlled preliminaries contrasting mechanical helped methods and laparoscopic or open procedures are for the most part deficient.

Telerobotic medical procedure stands apart as an approach to conveying careful attention to patients who have no immediate admittance to a specialist; in any case, costs are restrictive to the spread of such innovation to underserved regions that need it most. Indeed, even in the United States, careful robots are essentially accessible in huge scholarly focuses. The issues of cost, specialized disadvantages, and clinical adequacy should be settled before mechanical systems can become standard, regular surgeries [4].

New innovations, like computer generated experience, haptics, and telementoring, can intensely align with careful robots to make another vehicle for obtaining and evaluation of careful abilities through reproduction of all activities that should be possible by means of the robot. Execution of mechanical methods requires specific preparation. In any case, most of residency programs in the United States don't give formal preparation in automated medical procedure ability [5]. Understudies, occupants, and residency projects ought to endeavor to stay aware of this new advancement in careful innovation that is probably going to reshape the manner in which we practice a medical procedure.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Ballantyne, Garth H. “The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery.” Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12 (2002): 1–5.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Ballantyne, Garth H. “Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results.” Surg Endosc 16 (2002): 1389–1402.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Hashizume, Makoto and Kouji Tsugawa. “Robotic surgery and cancer: the present state, problems and future vision.” Jpn J Clin Oncol 34 (2004): 227–237.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Marohn, Michael R. and Eric J. Hanly. “Twenty-first century surgery using twenty-first century technology: surgical robotics.” Curr Surg 61 (2004): 466–473.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Camarillo, David B., Thomas M. Krummel and J. Kenneth Salisbury. “Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future.” Am J Surg 188 (2004): 2S–15S.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at