2 min reading time
What is MIS? Benefits of MIS: What are the benefits of single-port laparoscopic surgery? – Covidien’s SILS The greatest benefit of single-port surgery is improved cosmetics resulting from one surgical incision hidden in the umbilicus rather than several small abdominal scars. The benefits may also include: – Less pain The disadvantages are higher cost and technical difficulties of the procedure. There is also a lack of randomized, controlled trials comparing single-port laparoscopy with conventional multiple-port procedures. If anyone is aware of recently published or unpublished studies, please share them with the group. I would also be interested to hear your general opinions on single-port techniques. If you have any suggestions for future announcements to the group, please let me know by email (rob@13485cert.com) or you can fill in the suggestion box on my website: http://bit.ly/QA-RA-Suggestion-Box. You might also be interested in joining Joe Hage’s QA/RA Subgroup that I manage. source: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2526855/2526855-5973752647193239555 Marked as spam
|
Meet your next client here. Join our medical devices group community.
Private answer
Ian Mor - MIS spokesperson online: MIS also stands for 'Make It Simple'. Established in 1995, MIS Implants Technologies Ltd. is a global leader in the development and production of advanced products and innovative solutions aimed to simplify dental implantology. Through our state-of-the-art production facilities, MIS offers a comprehensive range of cutting-edge dental implants, superstructures, tools and kits, as well as extensive solutions for oral restoration and health. MIS products are distributed in over 65 countries worldwide.
Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
As you pointed out, there is a lack of good data on single port surgery with most available literature presenting level III data. In the few RCTs and reviews I have seen, the data seems to suggest increased pain immediately post op, longer operative time (which should be considered given the adverse effects of prolonged anesthesia), and increased rate of hernia formation. Surgeons are wise to consider whether an improved cosmetic result is worth the potential complications of single port surgery and reduced ergonomics of operating through a single port. Granted, new instruments improve the ergonomics of the operation but at increased cost. Device manufacturers should consider the above when designing and marketing single access devices.
A couple of primary articles below: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-011-2028-z http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1072751513001828 Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
Rajas Sirvoicar
SILS is the complicated version of a successful MIS procedure of Cholecystectomy. There is no difference in the prognosis for the patient. As far as cosmesis is concerned, a belly dancer who has undergone the procedure would be in a better position to comment.
Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
Trent Pierce
MIS is Minimally Invasive Surgery-a sub-service line to laparoscopic surgery. SILS is Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery. Examples of SILS would be SILS donor nephrectomies or SILS colectomies. Essentially most of the procedure is performed laparoscopically, but the main portion of the procedure is done OUTSIDE of the abdominal cavity, through the SILS port, which can allow a hand to be inserted into the abdomen or stretched enough to removed a harvested kidney.
Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
Rob Packard
Thank you for the great discussions and comments. Any suggestions for the next announcement?
Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
Janie Enright
I agree with Daniel Hashimoto. SILS has not been fully embraced due to the ergonomics of the instruments and the increased pain in the umbilical area. Instead surgeons are turning to 2.3mm instruments. Smaller port sizes offer reduction in pain and better cosmesis and the instruments are ergonomically designed. An instrument can be inserted percutaneously anywhere in the procedure as well for additional retraction. A mix of 5mm and 2.3mm instruments can be used.
Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
Rajas Sirvoicar
I believe a large section of surgeons should be able to adapt to new surgical technologies without compromising patient safety. Reducing the port diameter from 5 mm to 2.5 mm may not bring appreciable patient benefits, but the cost of manufacturing of the instruments go up substantially,they become more delicate and incidences of instrument jaw breakage increase many-fold.Such miniature technologies will coexist, but for specific procedures.Major resections using staplers will never go so tiny.
Marked as spam
|
|
Private answer
Janie Enright
Rajas the technology of today is advancing. instruments are extremely durable and offer many patient benefits The only drawback that we are working on is electrosurgical cababilitities
Marked as spam
|