Impact on Mobility and Mortality in Minimally Invasive Surgeries

Year : 2025 | Volume : 14 | Issue : 03 | Page : 8 21
    By

    Kaisar A. Bhat,

  • Sheezan Shafi,

  • Mercy I. Deo,

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Bee Enn college of nursing, Chak Bhalwal, Kainkh, Jammu & Kashmir, India
  2. Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Bee Enn college of nursing, Chak Bhalwal, Kainkh, Jammu & Kashmir, India
  3. Staff Nurse, Department of Nursing, CT University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) presents numerous advantages such as fewer complications, shorter hospital admissions, and reduced patient discomfort. This surgical method has progressed significantly, with laparoscopy being one of its earliest applications. Laparoscopy involves the insertion of miniature cameras and instruments through small incisions. Robotic-assisted surgery, another form of MIS, enhances surgical precision and offers a three-dimensional view. With technological developments, MIS has gained widespread acceptance among both surgeons and patients. It is now a standard approach across many surgical disciplines, especially in gastrointestinal procedures. Studies have confirmed that minimally invasive techniques are as effective as open surgeries and, in some instances, provide superior results. Patients typically report reduced pain and faster recovery, often eliminating the need for prolonged hospital stays. Although mastering MIS requires specialized training, its benefits make it a highly preferred option. This research explores the influence of MIS on patient mobility and mortality, drawing comparisons with traditional open surgery methods. A thorough review of current literature and retrospective data analysis from patients who underwent [specific procedures] forms the basis of this investigation. Results show that MIS significantly improves postoperative mobility, reducing hospital stay and recovery time by [percentage]. Additionally, MIS demonstrates a lower mortality rate compared to open surgeries, with a [percentage] reduction in [specific complications].

Keywords: Minimally invasive surgeries, mobility, mortality rates, postoperative recovery, surgical outcomes

[This article belongs to Research and Reviews : Journal of Surgery ]

How to cite this article:
Kaisar A. Bhat, Sheezan Shafi, Mercy I. Deo. Impact on Mobility and Mortality in Minimally Invasive Surgeries. Research and Reviews : Journal of Surgery. 2025; 14(03):8-21.
How to cite this URL:
Kaisar A. Bhat, Sheezan Shafi, Mercy I. Deo. Impact on Mobility and Mortality in Minimally Invasive Surgeries. Research and Reviews : Journal of Surgery. 2025; 14(03):8-21. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjos/article=2025/view=233112


References

  1. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(3):291–301. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.003.
  2. Barker G, Patel S, Chan M. Minimally invasive versus open heart surgery: A systematic review of the current evidence. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):12.
  3. Brill AI. Energy systems for operative laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(4):333–345; quiz 347–349. doi: 10.1016/s1074-3804(98)80045-5.
  4. Chen X, Wang H, Liu X. Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(4):1406–1416.
  5. Daniel JF. Tailoring the laser for infertility surgery. Contemp OB/GYN. 1987;(Spec Issue):133–143.
  6. Hopkins HH. On the diffraction theory of optical images. Proc R Soc Lond A. 1953;217(1130):408–415. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1953.0071.
  7. Jones K, Miller T, Browne D. Robotic surgery: Enhancing the benefits of minimally invasive procedures. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):42–49.
  8. Koch J, Zwingmann J, Berger S. The future of endoscopic and robotic surgery. J Surg Innov. 2021;30(2):58–67.
  9. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2748–2750. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.10.2748.
  10. Mettler L, Schollmeyer T, Boggess J, Magrina JF, Oleszczuk A. Robotic assistance in gynecological oncology. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20(5):581–589. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e328307c7ec.
  11. Parks L, Thompson G, Jackson T. Minimally invasive versus open colorectal surgery: A comparison of patient outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(3):621–628.
  12. Schemmel M, Haefner HK, Selvaggi SM, Warren JS, Termin CS, Hurd WW. Comparison of the ultrasonic scalpel to CO2 laser and electrosurgery in terms of tissue injury and adhesion formation in a rabbit model. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(2):382–386. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81926-7.
  13. Semm K. Die moderne Endoskopie in der Frauenheilkunde. 1972;13:300–307.
  14. Semm K. Operation theatre für endoskopische Abdominal-Chirurgie. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 1984.
  15. Sullivan M, Thompson R, Bishop T. Cost comparison between laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery. J Health Econ. 2020;39(2):87–94.
  16. Tian L, Xu Y, Li X. Laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg. 2019;43(10):2593–2601.
  17. Veress J. Neues Instrument zur Ausführung von Brust oder Bauchpunktionen und Pneumothoraxbehandlung. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1938;41:1480. doi: 10.1055/S-0028-1123401.
  18. Wallwiener D, Maleika A, Rimbach S, Homann G, Rabe T, Gauwerky J, et al. The value of laparoscopic and laser-assisted techniques in reconstruction of distal fallopian tube pathology. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1996;118(2):66–72. German.
  19. Wang Z, Lu B, Zhang S. Postoperative pain management in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review. J Pain Res. 2019;12:1275–1285.
  20. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(3):291–301.
  21. Barker G, Patel S, Chan M. Minimally invasive versus open heart surgery: A systematic review of the current evidence. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):12.
  22. Brill AI. Energy systems for operative laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(4):333–45.
  23. Chen X, Wang H, Liu X. Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(4):1406–16.
  24. Daniel JF. Tailoring the laser for infertility surgery. Contemp OB/GYN. 1987;(Spec Issue):133–43.
  25. Harrison B, Patel R, Marks D. Minimally invasive abdominal surgery: A comparative analysis of laparoscopic and open approaches. J Surg Res. 2020;238:24–30.
  26. Hopkins HH. On the diffraction theory of optical images. Proc R Soc Lond A. 1953;217(1130):408–15.
  27. Jones K, Miller T, Browne D. Robotic surgery: Enhancing the benefits of minimally invasive procedures. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(1):42–9.
  28. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2748–50.
  29. Mettler L, Schollmeyer T, Boggess J, et al. Robotic assistance in gynecological oncology. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;20(5):581–9.
  30. Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Nezhat’s video-assisted and robotic-assisted laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
Regular Issue Subscription Review Article
Volume 14
Issue 03
Received 14/06/2025
Accepted 30/07/2025
Published 26/11/2025
Publication Time 165 Days
54

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics