Evaluation of active camera control systems in gynecological surgery: construction, handling, comfort, surgeries and results
- 271 Downloads
Surgeon-controlled endoscope leading assistance systems are a novelty in endoscopic surgery. These systems were evaluated for their applicability and reliability in operative gynecology. In this regard, we evaluated possible methods of operation, operative time, setup time, and comfort for the surgeon, complications, blood transfusions, length of stay, hemoglobin levels, and demographic data.
Two systems with technically identical camera control systems were applied, the SOLOASSIST™ system and the Einstein Vision™ 3D system. The arm systems are attached to the operating table and controlled by surgeon via a manual control, a remote control or a foot switch. Comfort for the surgeon was evaluated using a questionnaire (scale 1–5; 1 “very good”, 5 “poor”). All data were collected prospectively in a database (IBM SPSS Statistics 20) and evaluated.
One hundred and four patients underwent surgery supported by an active control system. In 43 (41 %) cases, oncological interventions were performed. Average setup time was 7 (3–30) min. There was a significant learning curve regarding the mounting of the system after 20 operations (p = 0.045). Overall comfort was rated as “good”, divided into control 2.2 (2–4), physical effort 2.1 (1–4), picture quality 1.6 (1–3), and overall satisfaction 2.1 (1–4). About 75 unwanted camera movements were noticed in 104 surgeries. Complications occurred in no case (0 %).
The application of an active camera control system was evaluated to be safe for all gynecological laparoscopies. Picture blur is avoided even during prolonged complex procedures. Moreover, the assistant is able to support the surgeon with two instruments, with the result that the presence of a second assistant is not required for complex interventions. Causing only minimal setup time, the examined active control systems improve the effectiveness of surgeries. The physical effort required for the assistant decreases and, by reducing tiring operations and tremor, subsequently, higher precision is reached.
KeywordsLaparoscopy Active camera control systems SOLOASSIST™ Einstein Vision™ 3D surgery
Conflict of interest
- 2.Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF (2011) Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int Epub: 852061Google Scholar
- 7.Bogess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:360.e1–9Google Scholar
- 15.Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC (2008) A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):357.e1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.058 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA (2008) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(6):679.e1–9 discussion 679.e9–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Corronado PJ, Herraiz MA, Magrina JF, Fasero M, Vidart JA (2012) Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Epub: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.006