Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMirmilstein, G.
dc.contributor.authorNoel, J.
dc.contributor.authorGbolahan, O.
dc.contributor.authorVasdev, Nikhil
dc.contributor.authorLane, T.
dc.contributor.authorAdshead, J.
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-06T01:10:56Z
dc.date.available2019-12-06T01:10:56Z
dc.date.issued2019-11
dc.identifier.citationMirmilstein , G , Noel , J , Gbolahan , O , Vasdev , N , Lane , T & Adshead , J 2019 , ' The Lister AirSeal® port closure technique – Initial patient outcomes ' , Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England , vol. 101 , no. 8 , pp. 606-608 . https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2019.0103
dc.identifier.issn0035-8843
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 17750216
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: cd7690fa-0ee1-4bc6-86dc-484e5bed7124
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85074441547
dc.identifier.otherPubMed: 31672035
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/21964
dc.description© 2019 Royal College of Surgeons of England.
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION The 12-mm AirSeal® port is widely used in robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy due to its ability to maintain stable pneumoperitoneal pressures and smoke evacuation. However, it creates a potential risk of port site hernia. We have traditionally used EndoClose™ to perform full thickness closure of this port, but noted that patients experienced increased pain related to this procedure, which sometimes persisted for several months. Using the Da Vinci Si we performed peritoneal closure with 2-0 vicryl by switching the fourth arm to the right master controller. The external oblique sheath was closed outside with 1 Ethibond. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed this closure in 20 consecutive patients (group 1). Postoperative day 1, 2 and post-discharge telephone consultation pain scores (1–10) were recorded and compared with the previous 20 consecutive patients who had the EndoClose closure (group 2). RESULTS We recorded an instructional video to enable reproduction of the new technique. The mean length of stay was 1.5 days for patients in group 1 and 1.9 days for those in group 2 (P = 0.04). There was no difference in operating time or average day 1 pain scores. Post-discharge follow-up call revealed 1 of 20 patients who had AirSeal port site pain in group 1 and 5 of 17 in group 2 (P = 0.04). Pain scores also tended to be higher for group 2. CONCLUSIONS Our preliminary analysis of this novel technique to close the AirSeal port in two separate layers improves postoperative pain related to this port site.en
dc.format.extent3
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
dc.subjectMinimally invasive surgical procedures
dc.subjectProstatic neoplasms
dc.subjectRobotic surgical procedures
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.titleThe Lister AirSeal® port closure technique – Initial patient outcomesen
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Health Services and Clinical Research
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Clinical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.date.embargoedUntil2020-09-06
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074441547&partnerID=8YFLogxK
dc.identifier.urlhttps://europepmc.org/article/MED/31672035
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2019.0103
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record