The AESOP robot system in laparoscopic surgery: Increased risk or advantage for surgeon and patient?

  • B. M. Kraft
  • C. Jäger
  • K. Kraft
  • B. J. Leibl
  • R. Bittner
Original article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to examine the advantages and risks of the Automated Endoscopic System for Optical Positioning (AESOP) 3000 robot system during uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomies or laparoscopic hernioplasty.

Methods

In a randomized study, we examined two groups of 120 patients each with the diagnosis cholecystolithiasis respectively the unilateral inguinal hernia. We worked with the AESOP 3000, a robotic arm system that is voice-controlled by the surgeon. The subjective and objective comfort of the surgeon as well as the course and length of the operation were measured.

Results

The robot-assisted operations required significantly longer preparation and operation times. With regard to the necessary commands and manual camera corrections, the assistant group was favored. The same was true for the subjective evaluation of the surgical course by the surgeon.

Conclusions

Our study showed that the use of AESOP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hernioplasty is possible in 94% of all cases. The surgeon must accept a definite loss of comfort as well as a certain loss of time against the advantage of saving on personnel.

Keywords

Robotics AESOP robot system Laparoscopic procedures Transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair Laparoscopic cholecystectomy 

References

  1. 1.
    Aiono, S, Gilbert, JM, Soin, B, Finlay, PA, Gordan, A 2002Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomySurg Endosc1612671270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allaf, ME, Jackman, SV, Schulam, PG, Cadeddu, JA, Lee, BR, Moore, RG, Kavoussi, LR 1998Laparoscopic visual field: voice vs foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robotSurg Endosc1214151418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arezzo, A, Ulmer, F, Weiss, O, Schurr, MO, Hamad, M, Buess, GF 2000Experimental trial on solo surgery for minimally invasive therapy: comparison of different systems in a phantom modelSurg Endosc14955959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baca, I 1997Roboterarm in der laparoskopischen ChirurgieChirurg68837839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ballantyne, GH 2002Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telemonitoring: review of early clinical resultsSurg Endosc1613891402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Begin, E, Gagner, M, Hurteau, R, Santis, S, Pomp, A 1995A robotic camera for laparoscopic surgery: conception and experimental resultsSurg Laparosc Endosc5611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boer, KT, Bruijn, M, Jaspers, JE, Stassen, LP, Erp, WF, Jansen, A, Go, PM,  et al. 2002Time–action analysis of instrument positioners in laparoscopic cholecystectomieSurg Endosc16142147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunlap, KD, Wanzer, L 1998Is the robotic arm a cost-effective surgical tool?Aorn J68265272PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esumi, G, Tomikawa, M, Hashizume, M, Konishi, K, Shimada, M, Sugimachi, K 2001Current status and future of surgical robotic systemsFukuoka Igaku Zasshi92315318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Imme, A, Caglia, P, Gandolfo, L, Cavallaro, G,  et al. 2002Robotic techniques in laparoscopic surgeryChir Ital54111113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobs, LK, Shayani, V, Sackier, JM 1997Determination of the learning curve of the AESOP robotSurg Endosc115455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kasalicky, MA, Svab, J, Fried, M, Melechovsky, D 2002AESOP 3000—computer-assisted surgery, personal experienceRozhl Chir81346349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Köninger, J, Butters, M 2001Laparoskopische Leistenhernienchirurgie mit dem RoboterarmMin Invas Chir102730Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kondraske, GV, Hamilton, EC, Scott, DJ, Fischer, CA, Tesfay, ST, Taneja, R, Brown, RJ,  et al. 2002Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera controlSurg Endosc1615231527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mettler, L, Ibrahim, M, Jonat, W 1998One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgeryHum Reprod1327482750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moran, ME 1993Stationary and automated laparoscopically assisted technologiesJ Laparoendosc Surg3221227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niebuhr, H, Born, O 2000Image Tracking System Eine neue Technik für die sichere und kostensparende laparoskopische OperationChirurg71580584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Okada, S, Tanaba, Y, Yamauchi, H, Sato, S 1998Single-surgeon thorackoscopic surgery with a voice-controlled robotLancet3511249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reichenspurner, H, Boehm, DH, Welz, A, Schulze, C, Zwissler, B, Reichart, B 19983D-video- and robot-assisted minimally invasive ASD closure using the port-access techniqueHeart Surg Forum1104106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reichenspurner, H, Boehm, DH, Gulbins, H, Schulze, C, Wildhirt, S, Welz, A, Detter, C,  et al. 2000Three-dimensional video and robot-assisted port-access mitral valve operationAnn Thorac Surg6911761182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turner, DJ, Semm, K 2000The role of computers and robotics in endoscopic surgerySurg Technol Int82327Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yavuz, Y, Ystgaard, B, Skogvoll, E, Marvik, R 2000A comparative experimental study evaluating the performance of surgical robots AESOP and EndosistaSurg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech10163167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. M. Kraft
    • 1
  • C. Jäger
    • 1
  • K. Kraft
    • 1
  • B. J. Leibl
    • 1
  • R. Bittner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General and Visceral SurgeryMarienhospital StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations