ROBOT YARDIMLI CERRAHİ GİRİŞİMLERDE İKİNCİ GÜVENLİ CERRAHİ KONTROL LİSTESİ KULLANIMININ ÖNEMİ (THE SECOND “TIME-OUT”)

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 539 - 547, 25.08.2022

Esra Kılınç Akman , Fatma Balcı , Nevin Kanan

https://doi.org/10.56061/fbujohs.1141442

Öz

Teknolojideki önemli gelişmeler cerrahi süreçleri de etkileyerek ameliyatlarda yeni tekniklerin kullanılmasına olanak sağladı. Ameliyatlarda geleneksel yöntemlerin yanı sıra robotlar da kullanılmaya başlandı. Robotların kullanılmasıyla gerçekleştirilen cerrahi girişimler “Robotik Cerrahi” olarak adlandırılmakta olup, insanlık için yeni ufuklar açan ve sürekli gelişen güncel bir teknolojidir. Robotik cerrahi, daha az kan kaybı, daha düşük transfüzyon hızı ve kısa iyileşme süresi gibi avantajları nedeniyle hastalar, cerrahlar ve hemşireler için birçok avantaja sahiptir. Hemşirelerin, teknolojik gelişmeleri takip ederek uyum sağlamaları ve profesyonel hemşirelik rollerini artırmaları beklenmektedir. Robotik cerrahide diğer önemli konu da hasta güvenliği olup, hastanın pozisyonu özel bir endişe kaynağıdır. Robotik cerrahi sonrası gelişebilecek komplikasyonlar, hasta pozisyonunun uygun olmaması ve hasta güvenliğinin tam sağlanmamasından kaynaklanabilir. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü’nün 2008 yılında yayınladığı güvenli cerrahi kontrol listesinde yer alan “time-out”un uygulanması ile perioperatif süreçte morbidite ve mortalitede azalma olduğu belirlenmiştir. Robotik cerrahi ameliyatlarında, ameliyat başladıktan 3-4 saat sonra “time-out” un tekrar uygulanmasıyla gelişebilecek komplikasyonlar önlenebilmektedir. Bu makalede robotik cerrahide ikinci güvenli cerrahi kontrol listesinin ülkemiz koşullarına uyarlanması amaçlandı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

hasta güvenliği, kontrol listesi,, robotik cerrahi işlemler

THE IMPORTANCE OF USING THE SECOND SAFE SURGICAL CHECKLIST TO ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGERY (THE SECOND “TIME-OUT”)

Öz

Significant advances in technology have also affected surgical processes, allowing new techniques to be used in surgeries. In addition to traditional methods, robots began to be used in surgeries. Surgical interventions performed with the use of robots are called "Robotic Surgery," and it is an up-to-date technology that opens new horizons for humanity and is constantly developing. Robotic surgery has many advantages for patients, surgeons, and nurses due to its advantages such as less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter recovery time. Nurses are expected to adapt to and increase their professional nursing roles by following technological developments. Another important issue in robotic surgery is patient safety and the patient's position is a particular concern. Complications that may develop after robotic surgery may result from inappropriate patient positioning and incomplete patient safety. It has been determined that there is a decrease in morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period with the application of "time-out," which is included in the safe surgery checklist published by the World Health Organization in 2008. Complications that may develop in robotic surgery operations can be prevented by re-applying the “time-out” 3-4 hours after the start of the operation. In this article, it was aimed to adapt the second safe surgery checklist in robotic surgery to the conditions in our country.

Anahtar Kelimeler

control list, patient safety, robotic surgical procedures

Kaynakça

• Kaynakça / References 1. Abboudi, H., Khan, M. S., Aboumarzouk, O., Guru, K. A., Challacombe, B., Dasgupta, P., & Ahmed, K. (2013). Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators–a systematic review. BJU international, 111(2), 194-205.doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012
• 2. Akhavan, A., Gainsburg, D. M., & Stock, J. A. (2010). Complications associated with patient positioning in urologic surgery. Urology, 76(6), 1309-1316.
• 3. Alcan, A. O., Soyer, Ö., VAN GİERSBERGEN, M. Y., Solak, M., & Yoltay, H. E. Hemşirelerin Robotik Cerrahi Konusundaki Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(1), 5-9. doi:10.30934/kusbed.440490
• 4. Andersson, L. E., Bååth, M., Thörne, A., Aspelin, P., & Odeberg-Wernerman, S. (2005). Effect of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on development of atelectasis during anesthesia, examined by spiral computed tomography. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, 102(2), 293-299.https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200502000-00009
• 5. Appledorn, S. V., & Costello, A. J. (2007). Complications of robotic surgery and how to prevent them. In Robotic urologic surgery (pp. 169-178). Springer, London.
• 6. Cheney, F. W., Domino, K. B., Caplan, R. A., & Posner, K. L. (1999). Nerve injury associated with anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, 90(4), 1062-1069.https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199904000-00020
• 7. Clarke-Pearson, D. L., Dodge, R. K., Synan, I., McClelland, R. C., & Maxwell, G. L. (2003). Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: patients at high risk to fail intermittent pneumatic compression. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 101(1), 157-163.
• 8. Çelik, S. (2011). Cerrahi bakımda bilgi güncelleme. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, (2), 61-65. 9. ÇELİK, S. (2011). Robotlı laparoskopide hemşirenin rolü. Yeni Tıp Dergisi , 28 (2), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.30934/kusbed.440490
• 10. Daniel, W. T., Puskas, J. D., Baio, K. T., Liberman, H. A., Devireddy, C., Finn, A., & Halkos, M. E. (2012). Lessons learned from robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: risk factors for conversion to median sternotomy. Innovations, 7(5), 323-327.
• 11. Francis, P. (2008). New Technology and patient safety go hand in hand. OR Nurse, 2(1), 41-46. doi: 10.1097/01.ORN.0000305172.10829.e0
• 12. Ghomi, A., Kramer, C., Askari, R., Chavan, N. R., & Einarsson, J. I. (2012). Trendelenburg position in gynecologic robotic-assisted surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 19(4), 485-489.
• 13. Gofrit, O. N., Mikahail, A. A., Zorn, K. C., Zagaja, G. P., Steinberg, G. D., & Shalhav, A. L. (2008). Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology, 71(3), 404-407.
• 14. Hanna, E. M., Rozario, N., Rupp, C., Sindram, D., Iannitti, D. A., & Martinie, J. B. (2013). Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: lessons learned and predictors for conversion. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 9(2), 152-159.
• 15. Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A. H. S., Dellinger, E. P., ... & Gawande, A. A. (2009). A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England journal of medicine, 360(5), 491-499. https://doi.org/10.3201%2Feid0705.017509
• 16. Hussain, A., Malik, A., Halim, M. U., & Ali, A. M. (2014). The use of robotics in surgery: a review. International journal of clinical practice, 68(11), 1376-1382.
• 17. Jaffer, A. K., Barsoum, W. K., Krebs, V., Hurbanek, J. G., Morra, N., & Brotman, D. J. (2005, June). Duration of anesthesia and venous thromboembolism after hip and knee arthroplasty. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 80, No. 6, pp. 732-738). Elsevier.
• 18. Jennifer. M, Brusco. BS., (2012). Trends in robotic surgery. AORN Connections. 95(4):C7-C9. doi:10.1016/S0001-2092(12)00253-0.
• 19. Kural, A. R., & Atug, F. (2010). Ürolojide robotik cerrahi uygulamalari/The applications of robotic surgery in urology. Turkish Journal of Urology, 36(3), 248.
• 20. Lanfranco, A. R., Castellanos, A. E., Desai, J. P., & Meyers, W. C. (2004). Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Annals of surgery, 239(1), 14. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000103020.19595.7d.
• 21. Liu, F. C., Liou, J. T., Hui, Y. L., Hsu, J. C., Yang, C. Y., Yu, H. P., & Lui, P. W. (2003). Chemical burn caused by povidone-iodine alcohol solution--a case report. Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica, 41(2), 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3185
• 22. Meininger, D., Byhahn, C., Bueck, M., Binder, J., Kramer, W., Kessler, P., & Westphal, K. (2002). Effects of prolonged pneumoperitoneum on hemodynamics and acid-base balance during totally endoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. World journal of surgery, 26(12), 1423-1427. doi 10.1007/s00268-002-6404-7
• 23. Mills, J. T., Burris, M. B., Warburton, D. J., Conaway, M. R., Schenkman, N. S., & Krupski, T. L. (2013). Positioning injuries associated with robotic assisted urological surgery. The Journal of urology, 190(2), 580-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3185
• 24. Phong, S. V. N., & Koh, L. K. D. (2007). Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesthesia and intensive care, 35(2), 281-285. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0310057X0703500221
• 25. Raheem, A. A., Song, H. J., Chang, K. D., Choi, Y. D., & Rha, K. H. (2017). Robotic nurse duties in the urology operative room: 11 years of experience. Asian journal of urology, 4(2), 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.09.012
• 26. Song, J. B., Vemana, G., Mobley, J. M., & Bhayani, S. B. (2013). The second “time-out”: a surgical safety checklist for lengthy robotic surgeries. Patient safety in surgery, 7(1), 1-6.http://www.pssjournal.com/content/7/1/19
• 27. Steinberg, J. P., Braun, B. I., Hellinger, W. C., Kusek, L., Bozikis, M. R., Bush, A. J., ... & Trial to Reduce Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Errors (TRAPE) Study Group. (2009). Timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infections: results from the Trial to Reduce Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Errors. Annals of surgery, 250(1), 10-16. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ad5fca
• 28. Szeto, G. P. Y., Ho, P., Ting, A. C. W., Poon, J. T. C., Tsang, R. C. C., & Cheng, S. W. K. (2010). A study of surgeons’ postural muscle activity during open, laparoscopic, and endovascular surgery. Surgical endoscopy, 24(7), 1712-1721.
• 29. Ucuzal, M., & Kanan, N. (2008). Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and nursing care. Journal of Istanbul University School of Nursing, 16, 57-64.
• 30. Walters, L., & Eley, S. (2011). Robotic‐assisted surgery and the need for standardized pathways and clinical guidelines. AORN journal, 93(4), 455-463. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2010.05.032.
• 31. Wasielewski, A. (2017). Guideline implementation: minimally invasive surgery, part 1. AORN journal, 106(1), 50-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2017.04.017 ª AORN, Inc, 2017
• 32. Winfree, C. J., & Kline, D. G. (2005). Intraoperative positioning nerve injuries. Surgical neurology, 63(1), 5-18.
• 33. Yavuz Karamanoğlu A. Gök Özer F. Zencir G. Robotik cerrahi. Bildirinin sunulduğu yer: 6. Türk Cerrahi ve Ameliyathane Hemşireliği Kongresi, Kongre Kitabı (1.baskı) s210-212; 3-6 Mayıs 2009; Kuşadası, Aydın.
• 34. Zanetti, G., Giardina, R., & Platt, R. (2001). Intraoperative redosing of cefazolin and risk for surgical site infection in cardiac surgery. Emerging infectious diseases, 7(5), 828.