Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 1267–1270 | Cite as

Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (Endo Assist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • S. Aiono
  • J. M. Gilbert
  • B. Soin
  • P. A. Finlay
  • A. Gordan
Original Articles

Abstract

Background

The role of the human camera holder during laparoscopic surgery keeps valuable personnel from other duties. EndoAssist is a robotic cameraholding device controlled by the operator’s head movements. This study assesses its introduction into clinical practice.

Method

Ninety-three patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to have either the robotic (40) or a human (46) assistant. Seven patients converted to open operation were excluded. Six surgeons were evaluated. Operating time and subjective assessments were recorded. Learning curves were constructed.

Results

The mean operating time was less using the robotic assistant (66 min) than with human assistance (74. min) (p<0.05, two-tailed t-test). The learning curves for operating time showed that within three operations surgeons were trained in using the robot. The device was safe in use.

Conclusion

The EndoAssist operating device is a significant asset in laparoscopic surgery and a suitable substitute for a human assistant. Surgeons became competent in the use of the robot within three operations. The robot offers stability and good control of the television image in laparoscopic surgery.

Key words

Medical robotics Laparoscopic surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baca I, Goetzen V (1998) Robotic assistance in “solo surgery” and complex laparoscopic procedures (abstract) Surg Endosc 12: 500Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Begin E, Gagner M, Hurteau R, de Santis S, Pomp A (1995) A robotic camera for laparoscopic surgery: Conception and experimental results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5: 6–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadeddu J, Stoianovici D, Kavoussi LR (1998) Robotic surgery in urology. Urol Clin N Am 25: 75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Finlay PA (1996) Clinical experience with a goniometric headcontrolled laparoscope manipulator. Proceedings of the IARP Workshop on Medical Robotics, Vienna, Oct 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gagner M, Begin E, Hurteau R, Pomp A (1994) Robotic interactive laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 343: 596–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geis WP (1996) Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improved efficiency and decreased resource utilisation in complex minimally invasive procedures. Proceedings of 4th International Symposium, Medicine Meets Virtual Reality: 4, Healthcare in the Information Age: Future Tools for Transforming Medicine. San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gracia C (1996) Clinical utility of a robotic assistant during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference for Minimally Invasive Therapy, Milan, Italy, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154: 2134–2136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kornsuthisopon S (1999) New release of the Boonpong laparoscopic camera holder. Aust N Z J Surg 69: 141–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moran ME (1993) Stationary and automated laparoscopically assisted technologies. J Laparoendosc Surg 3: 221–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Omote K, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Arbter K, Guo-Qing W, Siewert JR (1999) Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. Am J Surg 177: 321–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Partin AW, Adams JB, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1995) Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 181: 552–557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sackier JM, Wang Y (1994) Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. From concept to development. Surg Endosc 8: 63–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sackier JM, Wooters C, Jacobs L, Halversen A, Uecker D, Wang Y (1997) Voice activation of a surgical robotic assistant. Am J Surg 174: 406–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uggen PE, Marvik R, Myrvold HE, Finlay PA (1996) Assessment of EndoSista, a head controlled camera manipulator. Proceedings of E. A. E. S. Trondheim, Norway, JuneGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Warden J (1996) UK waiting lists grow longer. Br Med J 316: 1627Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zweifler MJ, Leitman IM, Subramaniam VA, Turgeon R, Mitchell D (1998) Does the use of the surgical robot allow for the replacement of an assistant during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? (abstract) Surg Endosc 12: 510Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Aiono
    • 1
  • J. M. Gilbert
    • 1
  • B. Soin
    • 1
  • P. A. Finlay
    • 2
  • A. Gordan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWexham Park HospitalSloughUK
  2. 2.Armstrong Healthcare LtdHigh WycombeUK

Personalised recommendations