MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL PROCEDURES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

• Autor(a) principal: Silva , Sávio Dimas da
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Rêgo , Hosana Maria Araújo, Oliveira , Sthephania Katarinny Guedes de, Arrieta , Julio Cesar Denis Ricaldi, Barros, Caroline Muniz, Filho, Washington Luiz Rodrigues da Silva, Filho , Ricardo Luiz Zanotto, Sousa , Maria Clara Nunes, Gama , Karina Machado, Freitas , Rangel Alves de Carvalho, Ferraz, Polyanna Sousa de Barros, Marques , Luiza Matias, Leite, Renan da Cunha, Oliveira , Raiane Souza, Postigo , Isabella Stéfanny de Freitas, Barros, Rafael Pontes, Oliveira, Verônica da Costa, Falcão , Ricardo Marinho Coutinho, Lima , Joelma Amaral Mendonça, Ferreira, Luana Melo, Neto, Walter Batista de Santana, Albuquerque, Carolina Pimentel Canales de, Lontra, Aline Alves Fiuza
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences
• DOI: 10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n5p5253-5273
• Texto Completo: https://bjihs.emnuvens.com.br/bjihs/article/view/1083
• topic: Precisão Cirúrgica; Inovações; Cirurgia Invasiva; Cirurgia Não Invasiva; Dicotomia Cirúrgica.; Surgical Precision; Innovations; Invasive Surgery; Non-Invasive Surgery; Surgical Dichotomy.

Objective: This article aims to explore the dichotomy between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional procedures (PC), analyzing the technological advances and clinical challenges inherent to both approaches. Results: CMI, with its reduced access and innovative technologies, has transformed surgical practice, challenging conventional procedures, which often involve more extensive incisions and prolonged recovery. The evolution of refined instrumentation such as endoscopes and surgical robotics has improved the accuracy of CMI, although challenges such as the learning curve and cost considerations persist. Methodology: The search included several academic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Scielo, VHL and Web of Science, using specific terms such as "Minimally Invasive Surgery", "Conventional Procedures" and other related terms. Boolean operators were used to optimize the search. The inclusion criteria ensured relevance, covering studies that directly compared clinical results between Minimally Invasive Surgery and conventional procedures. We excluded studies with heterogeneous samples or without pertinent information. Conclusion: The search for a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of both approaches is constant, encouraging critical reflection on the future of surgery in search of better results for patients.