• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• pp.93-97
• /
• 2013

Background: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has emerged as an alternative to conventional open surgery. This report reviews our experience with atrial septal defect using the da VinciTM surgical robot system. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 50 consecutive patients who underwent atrial septal defect repair using the da VinciTM surgical robot system between October 2007 and May 2011. Among these, 13 patients (26%) were approached through a totally endoscopic approach and the others by mini-thoracotomy. Nineteen patients had concomitant procedures including tricuspid annuloplasty (n=10), mitral valvuloplasty (n=9), and maze procedure (n=4). The mean follow-up duration was $16.9{\pm}10.4$ months. Results: No remnant interatrial shunt was detected by intraoperative or postoperative echocardiography. The atrial septal defects were mainly repaired by Gore-Tex patch closure (80%). There was no operative mortality or serious surgical complications. The aortic cross clamping time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were $74.1{\pm}32.2$ and $157.6{\pm}49.7$ minutes, respectively. The postoperative hospital stay was $5.5{\pm}3.3$ days. Conclusion: The atrial septal defect repair with concomitant procedures like mitral valve repair or tricuspid valve repair using the da VinciTM system is a feasible method. In addition, in selected patients, complete port access can be helpful for better cosmetic results and less musculoskeletal injury.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.38 no.7 s.252
• /
• pp.507-509
• /
• 2005

Open heart surgery via right thoracotomy can be accomplished in atrial septal defects, and mitral valve diseases. Recently, thoracoscopic atrial septal defect closure, mitral valve repair, Maze operation, and minimal invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) are accomplished with AESOP 3000. However, there is no report of thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement in Korea. We report a successful thoracospic aortic valve replacement assisted with AESOP 3000 in a 31-year-old female patient.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.147-154
• /
• 2007

• Proceedings of the KTCVS Conference
• /
• 1997.04a
• /
• pp.35-37
• /
• 1997

• 대한두경부종양학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.239-239
• /
• 2004

• Proceedings of the KOR-BRONCHOESO Conference
• /
• 2010.03a
• /
• pp.35-35
• /
• 2010

• Proceedings of the KTCVS Conference
• /
• 1996.10a
• /
• pp.52-52
• /
• 1996

• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.177-178
• /
• 2018

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.62 no.6
• /
• pp.727-727
• /
• 2019

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.145-152
• /
• 2016

Background Innovation has molded the current landscape of plastic surgery. However, documentation of this process only exists scattered throughout the literature as individual articles. The few attempts made to profile innovation in plastic surgery have been narrative, and therefore qualitative and inherently biased. Through the implementation of a novel innovation metric, this work aims to identify and characterise the most prevalent innovations in plastic surgery over the last 50 years. Methods Patents and publications related to plastic surgery (1960 to 2010) were retrieved from patent and MEDLINE databases, respectively. The most active patent codes were identified and grouped into technology areas, which were subsequently plotted graphically against publication data. Expert-derived technologies outside of the top performing patents areas were additionally explored. Results Between 1960 and 2010, 4,651 patents and 43,118 publications related to plastic surgery were identified. The most active patent codes were grouped under reconstructive prostheses, implants, instruments, non-invasive techniques, and tissue engineering. Of these areas and other expert-derived technologies, those currently undergoing growth include surgical instruments, implants, non-invasive practices, transplantation and breast surgery. Innovations related to microvascular surgery, liposuction, tissue engineering, lasers and prostheses have all plateaued. Conclusions The application of a novel metric for evaluating innovation quantitatively outlines the natural history of technologies fundamental to the evolution of plastic surgery. Analysis of current innovation trends provides some insight into which technology domains are the most active.