Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic surgery: first U.S. experience with a novel device

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Magnet-assisted surgery is a new platform within minimally invasive surgery. The Levita™ Magnetic Surgical System, the first magnetic surgical system to receive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, includes a deployable, magnetic grasper and an external magnet that is used to manipulate the grasper within the peritoneal cavity. This system is currently approved for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a body mass index (BMI) between 21 and 34 kg/m2. Herein, we detail the first United States experience with the Levita™ Magnetic Surgical System during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

The Levita™ Magnetic Surgical System was used on consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at our institution from June 2016 through November 2016. Only patients undergoing elective surgery and those with a body mass index (BMI) between 21 and 34 kg/m2 were included. Baseline patient characteristics, operative time, and perioperative details were collected.

Results

A total of ten patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the Levita™ Magnetic Surgical System during the defined study period. The mean age at the time of surgery was 49.0 years and the average BMI of the cohort was 27.6 kg/m2. The average operative time was 64.4 min. There were no perioperative complications. Seven (70.0%) patients were discharged to home on the day of surgery, while the remaining three (30.0%) patients were discharged to home on postoperative day number one. Surgeons reported that the magnetic grasper was easy to use and provided adequate tissue retraction and exposure.

Conclusions

The Levita™ Magnetic Surgical System is safe and feasible to use in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Routine use of this system may facilitate a reduction in the total number of laparoscopic trocars used, leading to less tissue trauma and improved cosmesis. Additional studies are needed to determine the applicability and utility of this system for other general surgery cases.

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

Reproduced with permission from Levita™ Magnetics Corporation

Fig. 2

Reproduced with permission from Levita™ Magnetics Corporation

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alloria AC, Lietman IM, Heitman E (2010) Delayed assessment and eager adoption of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: implications for developing surgical techniques. World J Gastroenterol 16(33):4115–4122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mintz Y, Talamini MA, Cullen J (2008) Evolution of laparoscopic surgery: lesson for NOTES. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 18:225–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kudsi OY, Catellano A, Kaza S et al (2017) Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da vinci single-site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-016.5353-4

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rivas H, Robles I, Riquelme F et al (2016) Magnetic surgery: results from first prospective clinical trial in 50 patients. Ann Surg. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002045

    Google Scholar 

  5. Keus F, de Jong JA, Gooszen HG et al (2006) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18(4):CD006231

    Google Scholar 

  6. van der Linden YT, Brenkman HJ, van der Horst S et al (2016) Robotic single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe but faces technical challenges. J Laproendeosc Adv Surg Tech A. 26(11):857–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vidal O, Valentini M, Espert JJ et al (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a safe and reproducible alternative. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 19(5):599–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marks JM, Phillips MS, Tacchino R et al (2013) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with improved cosmesis scoring at the cost of significantly higher hernia rates: 1-year results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial of traditional multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am College Surg 216(6):1037–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Peng C, Ling Y, Ma X et al (2013) Safety outcomes of NOTES cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 26(5):347–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. SCARLESS Study Group, Ahmed I, Cook JA et al (2015) Single port/incision laparoscopic surgery compared with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for appendicectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 29(1):77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisenberg D, Vidocszky TJ, Lau J et al (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery systems in a suturing and knot tying task. Surg Endosc 27(9):3182–3186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter JT, Kaplan JA, Nguyen JN et al (2014) A prospective, randomized controlled trial of single-incision laparoscopic vs conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for treatment of acute appendicitis. J Am College Surg 218(5):950–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Park S, Bergs RA, Eberhart R et al (2007) Trocar-less instrumentation for laparoscopy: magnetic positioning of intra-abdominal camera and retractor. Ann Surg 245(3):379–384

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cadeddu J, Ferndandez R, Desai M et al (2009) Novel magnetically guided intra-abdominal camera to facilitate laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: initial human experience. Surg Endosc 23(8):1894–1899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Best SL, Bergs R, Scott DJ et al (2012) Solo surgeon laparo-endoscopic single site nephrectomy facilitated by new generation magnetically anchored and guided systems camera. J Endourol 26(3):214–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuller J, Ashar B, Carey-Corrado J (2005) Trocar-associated injuries and fatalities: an analysis of 1399 reports to the FDA. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(4):302–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haskins IN, Corcelles R, Froylich D et al (2017) Primary inadequate weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is not associated with poor cardiovascular or metabolic outcomes: experience from a single institution. Obes Surg. doi:10.1007/s11695-016-2328-4

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Ivy N. Haskins: study concept, data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript writing. Andrew T. Strong: study concept, data analysis, data interpretation, final manuscript review. Matthew T. Allemang: study concept, data interpretation, final manuscript review. Kalman P. Benscath: study concept, data interpretation, final manuscript review. John H. Rodriguez: study concept, data interpretation, final manuscript review. Matthew D. Kroh: study concept, data interpretation, final manuscript review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Surgical Endoscopy, Department of General Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A-100, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Ivy N. Haskins, Andrew T. Strong, Matthew T. Allemang, Kalman P. Bencsath, John H. Rodriguez & Matthew D. Kroh

  2. Department of General Surgery, Cleveland Clinic-Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Matthew D. Kroh

  3. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Kalman P. Bencsath & Matthew D. Kroh

Authors
  1. Ivy N. Haskins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew T. Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew T. Allemang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kalman P. Bencsath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John H. Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew D. Kroh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew D. Kroh.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Andrew T. Strong, Matthew Allemang, and Kalman P. Benscath have no conflict of interest. Ivy N. Haskins has no conflicts of interest relevant to this publication but has received a Resident Research Grant from the Americas Hernia Society. John H. Rodriguez has no conflicts of interest relevant to this publication and has received research funding from intuitive surgical. Matthew D. Kroh is a consultant and part of the scientific committee for Levita™ Magnetics Corporation and has received research funding from Cook Biotech, Medtronic and Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Financial disclosures

Matthew D. Kroh is a consultant for Levita™ Magnetics.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haskins, I.N., Strong, A.T., Allemang, M.T. et al. Magnetic surgery: first U.S. experience with a novel device. Surg Endosc 32, 895–899 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5762-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5762-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation