Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 981–986 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of complete solo surgery with the “ViKY®” robotic laparoscope manipulator

  • Masahiro TakahashiEmail author
  • Masanori Takahashi
  • Naoto Nishinari
  • Hideki Matsuya
  • Tsutomu Tosha
  • Yukihiro Minagawa
  • Osamu Shimooki
  • Tadashi Abe
New Technology

Abstract

Background

Advancement in both surgical technique and medical equipment has enabled solo surgery. ViKY® Endoscope Positioning System (ViKY®) is a robotic system that remotely controls an endoscope and provides direct vision control to the surgeon. Here, we report our experience with ViKY®-assisted solo surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 25 cases of solo surgery TAPP with ViKY®. ViKY® was setup by the surgeon alone, and the setup duration was determined as the time at which the side rail was positioned and that when the endoscope was installed. For assessing the control unit, the number of false movements was counted. We compared the operative results between ViKY®-assisted solo surgery TAPP and the conventional method with an assistant.

Results

The average time to set up ViKY® was 7.9 min. The average number of commands for ViKY® during surgery was 98.3, and the average number of errors and no response of control unit was 7.9. The mean duration of surgery was 136 min for the ViKY® group, including the setup time, and 117 min for the conventional method. No case required an assistant during the operation. There was also no difference between the two groups with regard to postoperative complications and the rate of recurrence.

Conclusions

ViKY® proved reliable in recognizing orders with very few failures, and the operations were performed safely and were comparable to the conventional operations with assistants. Solo surgery with ViKY® was beneficial in this clinical evaluation.

Keywords

Solo surgery Robotic surgery Minimally invasive surgery Laparoscopic surgery Hernia 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Masahiro Takahashi, Masanori Takahashi, Naoto Nishinari, Hideki Matsuya, Tsutomu Tosha, Yukihiro Minagawa, Osamu Shimooki, and Tadashi Abe have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Mizota T, Watanabe Y, Madani A, Takemoto N, Yamada H, Poudel S, Miyasaka Y, Kurashima Y (2015) Liquid-injection for preperitoneal dissection of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair. Surg Endosc 29:516–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony R (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sackier JM, Wang Y (1994) Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 8:63–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schurr MO, Arezzo A, Neisius B, Rininsland H, Hilzinger HU, Dorn J, Roth K, Buess GF (1999) Trocar and instrument positioning system TISKA. An assist device for endoscopic solo surgery. Surg Endosc 13:528–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aiono S, Gilbert JM, Soin B, Finlay PA, Gordan A (2002) Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:1267–1270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polet R, Donnez J (2008) Using a laparoscope manipulator (LAPMAN) in laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Surg Technol Int 17:187–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamada K, Kato S (2008) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lung resection aimed at solo surgery for primary lung cancer. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 56:292–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillen S, Pletzer B, Heiligensetzer A, Wolf P, Kleeff J, Feussner H, Fürst A (2014) Solo-surgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a joystick-guided camera device: a case–control study. Surg Endosc 28:164–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    John H (2011) Dirckx, Robotic surgery, The SUM Program Obstetrics/Gynecology Advanced Medical Transcription Unit, 2nd edn. Health Profession Institute, http://www.hpisum.com/Dirckx,%20Robotic%20Surgery.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2016
  10. 10.
    Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alemzadeh H, Iyer RK, Kalbarczyk Z, Leveson N, Raman J (2016) Adverse, events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03518. Accessed 9 June 2016

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masahiro Takahashi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Masanori Takahashi
    • 2
  • Naoto Nishinari
    • 1
  • Hideki Matsuya
    • 1
  • Tsutomu Tosha
    • 1
  • Yukihiro Minagawa
    • 2
  • Osamu Shimooki
    • 2
  • Tadashi Abe
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMorioka Yu-ai HospitalMoriokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryIwate Prefectural Kuji HospitalKujiJapan

Personalised recommendations