Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 31, Issue 8, pp 3391–3397 | Cite as

Robotic cholecystectomy using Revo-i Model MSR-5000, the newly developed Korean robotic surgical system: a preclinical study

  • Jin Hong Lim
  • Woo Jung Lee
  • Dong Won Park
  • Hye Jin Yea
  • Se Hoon Kim
  • Chang Moo KangEmail author
Dynamic Manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard option for gastrointestinal surgeries. However, laparoscopic procedures require extended training times and are difficult for inexperienced surgeons. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery facilitates easy adaptation of laparoscopic procedures, but robotic surgical systems are expensive. In addition, their cost has remained high because there is currently only one manufacturer of commercially available systems. Recently, a new Korean robotic surgical system, Revo-i, has been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of Revo-i by performing robotic cholecystectomy in a porcine model.

Methods

After approval by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Yonsei University Health System, cholecystectomy was performed in four pigs using the Revo-i robotic surgical system. Operative time and perioperative complications were recorded, and all animals were observed for postoperative complications for 2 weeks after surgery

Results

Robotic cholecystectomy was completed successfully and without gallbladder perforation in all cases. The mean operative time was 78 ± 12 min, the mean docking time was 4.5 ± 2.52 min, and the mean console time was 49.8 ± 14.17 min. There were no perioperative complications, and none of the animal used for the in vivo models exhibited abnormal behavior during the postoperative observation period.

Conclusions

These preliminary results verify the safety and efficacy of robotic cholecystectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system. Human trials are slated to begin accordingly.

Keywords

Revo da Vinci Robot surgery Cholecystectomy Robotic surgical system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean government (MEST; NRF-2015R1A2A2A04003460).

Authors’ contribution

JHL Authors make substantial contributions to conception and design, and/or acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data; WJL Authors make substantial contributions to conception and design, and/or acquisition of data, and/or analysis and interpretation of data; DWP Authors participate in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; HJY Authors participate in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; SHK Authors participate in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; CMK Authors give final approval of the version to be submitted and any revised version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Woo Jung Lee serves as consultant for Meere Company Inc, Pangyo Techno Valley, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. Dong Won Park participates in development of robotic system, Meere Company Inc, Pangyo Techno Valley, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. Jin Hong Lim, Hye Jin Yea, Se Hoon Kim, Chang Moo Kang have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 138160 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A, Cioffi L, Langella S, Russolillo N, Belli A (2007) Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis: short- and middle-term results. Surg Endosc 21(11):2004–2011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mochiki E, Nakabayashi T, Kamimura H, Haga N, Asao T, Kuwano H (2002) Gastrointestinal recovery and outcome after laparoscopy-assisted versus conventional open distal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. World J Surg 26(9):1145–1149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang RC, Zhou YC, Mou YP, Huang CJ, Jin WW, Yan JF, Wang YX, Liao Y (2015) Laparoscopic versus open enucleation for pancreatic neoplasms: clinical outcomes and pancreatic function analysis. Surg Endosc. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4538-6 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou ZG, Hu M, Li Y, Lei WZ, Yu YY, Cheng Z, Li L, Shu Y, Wang TC (2004) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 18(8):1211–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hawasli A, Lloyd LR (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The learning curve: report of 50 patients. Am Surg 57(8):542–544 (discussion 545) PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jordan JA, Gallagher AG, McGuigan J, McClure N (2000) Randomly alternating image presentation during laparoscopic training leads to faster automation to the “fulcrum effect”. Endoscopy 32(4):317–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nio D, Bemelman WA, Busch OR, Vrouenraets BC, Gouma DJ (2004) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study. Surg Endosc 18(3):379–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Capelluto E, Bruyns J (2001) Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 25(11):1467–1477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fanfani F, Monterossi G, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, Alletti SG, Costantini B, Gallotta V, Selvaggi L, Restaino S, Scambia G (2015) The new robotic TELELAP ALF-X in gynecological surgery: single-center experience. Surg Endosc. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4187-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yi B, Wang G, Li J, Jiang J, Son Z, Su H, Zhu S (2015) The first clinical use of domestically produced Chinese minimally invasive surgical robot system “Micro Hand S”. Surg Endosc. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4506-1 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang CM, Chi HS, Hyeung WJ, Kim KS, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Kim BR (2007) The first korean experience of telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da vinci system. Yonsei Med J 48(3):540–545CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schostek S, Binser MJ, Rieber F, Ho CN, Schurr MO, Buess GF (2010) Artificial tactile feedback can significantly improve tissue examination through remote palpation. Surg Endosc 24(9):2299–2307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Gangnam Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Meere Company Inc, Pangyo Techno ValleyHwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-doRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Robot and MIS Center, Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of Laboratory Animal Resources, Avison Bio Medical Research Center, Severance HospitalYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations