Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing a novel wide field of view laparoscope with conventional laparoscope while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • New Technology
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The limited 70° field of view (FoV) used in standard laparoscopy necessitates maneuvering the laparoscope to view the ports, follow the surgical tools, and search for a target region. Complications related to events that take place outside the FoV are underreported. Recently, a novel laparoscopic system (SurroundScope, 270Surgical) was reported to dramatically expand the FoV from 70 to 270°. This study focuses on differences in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the SurroundScope compared to the standard laparoscope.

Methods

Forty-four laparoscopic surgeries were performed and video recorded. A subanalysis of 21 Cholecystectomies was performed and compared to 21 Cholecystectomies, performed with the standard laparoscope during the study period by the same surgeon.

Results

No accidental or intraoperative adverse events occurred when using the SurroundScope. Subanalysis of 21 Cholecystectomies revealed shorter fog/smoke cleaning times using the SurroundScope compared to the standard scope (1.45 ± 5.08 sec vs. 54.95 ± 137.77 sec, p = 0.0454). Furthermore, operations performed with the SurroundScope had a shorter trocar placement duration (85.0 ± 40.9 sec vs. 111.3 ± 70.5 sec; p = 0.077), shorter time to achieve critical view of safety (9.5 ± 4.14 min vs. 15.8 ± 11.87 min; p = 0.015), and shorter procedure duration (31.9 ± 10.4 min vs. 42.9 ± 22 min; p = 0.025). In post-operative evaluations, the surgeon noted that tools could be continuously followed and ports were visible without camera manipulation. Also, the surgeon agreed that the procedure could be better planned due to the wide FoV and that surgical workflow was improved. Furthermore, the surgeon agreed that the procedure was safer using the SurroundScope.

Conclusions

Initial results demonstrate the advantages of the SurroundScope over standard laparoscopy. By expanding the FoV, visualization is improved, the procedure is more efficient, significantly shorter and most important, patient safety, per surgeons’ testimonials is improved. Further investigation to quantify these benefits in a larger group of patients and among various surgical procedures should be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbitt D, Khallouq BB, Redan J (2017) Quantifying intraoperative laparoscopic visual field opacity. JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Song T, Lee DH (2020) A randomized Comparison of laparoscopic LEns defogging using Anti-fog solution, waRm saline, and chlorhexidine solution (CLEAR). Surg Endosc 34(2):940–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roviaro GC, Varoli F, Saguatti L, Vergani C, Maciocco M, Scarduelli A (2002) Major vascular injuries in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16(8):1192–1196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K et al (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237(4):460–469

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawrentschuk N, Fleshner NE, Bolton DM (2010) Laparoscopic lens fogging: a review of etiology and methods to maintain a clear visual field. J Endourol 24(6):905–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Martin KE, Moore CM, Tucker R, Fuchshuber P, Robinson T (2016) Quantifying inadvertent thermal bowel injury from the monopolar instrument. Surg Endosc 30(11):4776–4784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thompson KJ, Sroka G, Loveitt AP, Matter I, McCollister HM, Laniado M et al (2022) The introduction of wide-angle 270° laparoscopy through a novel laparoscopic camera system. Surg Endosc 36(3):2151–2158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rolinger J, Model N, Jansen K, Knöll M, Beyersdorffer P, Kunert W et al (2022) Quantification of electrosurgery-related critical events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a prospective experimental study among surgical novices. 4open. 25(5):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Strasberg SM, Helton WS (2011) An analytical review of vasculobiliary injury in laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. HPB (Oxford) 13(1):1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Binenbaum SJ, Goldfarb MA (2006) Inadvertent enterotomy in minimally invasive abdominal surgery. JSLS 10(3):336–340

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cassaro S (2015) Delayed manifestations of laparoscopic bowel injury. Am Surg 81(5):478–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Platz J, Hyman N (2012) Tracking intraoperative complications. J Am Coll Surg 215(4):519–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Conde Monroy D, Torres Gómez P, Rey Chaves CE, Recamán A, Pardo M, Sabogal JC (2022) Early vs. delayed reconstruction for bile duct injury a multicenter retrospective analysis of a hepatopancreaticobiliary group. Sci Rep 12(1):11609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nordestgaard AG, Bodily KC, Osborne RW, Buttorff JD (1995) Major vascular injuries during laparoscopic procedures. Am J Surg 169(5):543–545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bhoyrul S, Vierra MA, Nezhat CR, Krummel TM, Way LW (2001) Trocar injuries in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 192(6):677–683

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones MW, Guay E, Deppen JG (2023) Open cholecystectomy. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.

  17. Majumder A, Altieri MS, Brunt LM (2020) How do I do it: laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 5:15–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hershkovitz Y, Kais H, Halevy A, Lavy R (2016) Interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy: what is the best timing for surgery? Isr Med Assoc J 18(1):10–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lucocq J, Scollay J, Patil P (2022) Defining Prolonged Length of Stay (PLOS) following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and derivation of a pre-operative risk score to inform resource utilization, risk stratification, and patient consent. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watras AJ, Kim JJ, Ke J, Liu H, Greenberg JA, Heise CP et al (2020) Large-field-of-view visualization with small blind spots utilizing tilted micro-camera array for laparoscopic surgery. Micromachines (Basel) 11(5):488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Koong JK, Ng GH, Ramayah K, Koh PS, Yoong BK (2021) Early identification of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography: a randomised controlled study. Asian J Surg 44(3):537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Procter LD, Davenport DL, Bernard AC, Zwischenberger JB (2010) General surgical operative duration is associated with increased risk-adjusted infectious complication rates and length of hospital stay. J Am Coll Surg 210(1):60–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vettoretto N, Saronni C, Harbi A, Balestra L, Taglietti L, Giovanetti M (2011) Critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 15(3):322–325

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lau H, Brooks DC (2002) Contemporary outcomes of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a major teaching hospital. World J Surg 26(9):1117–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work is supported by 270Surgical.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 270Surgical Ltd., Netanya, Israel

    Shirley S. Shapira

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Zvi Ehrlich

  3. Department of Surgery, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel

    Pazit Koren & Gideon Sroka

Authors
  1. Shirley S. Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zvi Ehrlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pazit Koren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gideon Sroka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gideon Sroka.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Shirley Shapira is an employee and owns employee stock options in 270Surgical Ltd. Gideon Sroka, Zvi Ehrlich, and Pazit Koren have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shapira, S.S., Ehrlich, Z., Koren, P. et al. Comparing a novel wide field of view laparoscope with conventional laparoscope while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 37, 8910–8918 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10393-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10393-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation