Instrumentation for Non-obstetric Surgery During Pregnancy
While the basic ingredients of laparoscopic visualization and instrumentation have not changed, all required components in support of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have seen improvements in recent years, making potentially challenging procedures technically feasible and safe. Regardless of the new capabilities offered by innovative and enabling technologies, materials, and other parts of medical device manufacturing, the essential purpose of the finished products remains unchanged. First and foremost, new medical and surgical products are intended to support physicians and surgeons in making sound clinical decisions in the office, at the bedside, and in the operating room. Additionally, they are focused on expanding and strengthening the doctors’ capabilities. This chapter will go over the necessary basic and specialized equipment, as well as recent innovations in support of complex MIS surgical intervention during pregnancy.
KeywordsLaparoscopic visualization Reusable vs. disposable instruments 4K surgical imaging Fetoscopy instrumentation Remote surgical collaboration
- 5.Landman J, Kerbl K, Rehman J, Andreoni C, Humphrey PA, Collyer W, et al. Evaluation of a vessel sealing system, bipolar electrosurgery, harmonic scalpel, titanium clips, endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis vascular staples and sutures for arterial and venous ligation in a porcine model. J Urol. 2003;169(2):697–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Ethicon Endo-surgery. http://www.ees.com/Clinician/Product/energy#enseal-technology. Accessed 30 Nov 2011.
- 10.Nieboer TE, Hinoul P, Maxson AJ, Maxson AJ, Schwiers ML, Miller CE, et al. Clinical utility of a novel ultrasonic vessel sealing device in transecting and sealing large vessels during laparoscopic hysterectomy using advanced hemostasis mode. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;6(201):135–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Danielle JF, Gurley LD, Kurtz BR, Chambers JF. The use of an automatic stapling device for laparoscopic appendectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(4):721–3.Google Scholar