Skip to main content

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®): retrospective comparative study with human assistant

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Methods

Among 182 inguinal hernia patients treated by laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair, 82 cases were completed with a human scope assistant, while Soloassist was used in 100 cases. We retrospectively compared perioperative results of Soloassist group and human scope assistant group. In 139 unilateral cases, we also used logistic regression of perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

Results

All operations with Soloassist were carried out laparoscopically as solo-surgery without any system-specific complications. A statistically significant decrease in operation time was observed in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group (93.6 vs 85.9 min, p = 0.05). There was no prolongation of preoperative time or difference in the amount of intraoperative blood loss. Operation time was also significantly shorter in Soloassist group, when analyzing unilateral cases (85.5 vs 76.3 min, p = 0.02) and bilateral cases (126.9 vs 111.8 min, p = 0.01), independently. However, after propensity score matching in unilateral cases, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (83.8 vs 77.2 min, p = 0.23).

Conclusions

The feasibility of Soloassist in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was demonstrated with no adverse device-related events. All surgeries could be completed as solo-surgery, while no additional time for preoperative setting was required. The mean operation time tends to be shorter in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group. Soloassist could be an effective device in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Yavuz Y, Ystgaard B, Skogvoll E, Mårvik R (2000) A comparative experimental study evaluating the performance of surgical robots aesop and endosista. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 10:163–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 16:1267–1270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Takahashi M, Takahashi M, Nishinari N, Matsuya H, Tosha T, Minagawa Y, Shimooki O, Abe T (2017) Clinical evaluation of complete solo surgery with the “ViKY®” robotic laparoscope manipulator. Surg Endosc 31:981–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 28:164–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kraft BM, Jäger C, Kraft K, Leibl BJ, Bittner R (2004) The AESOP robot system in laparoscopic surgery: increased risk or advantage for surgeon and patient. Surg Endosc 18:1216–1223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tran H (2011) Robotic single-port hernia surgery. JSLS 15:309–314

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ohmura Y, Nakagawa M, Suzuki H, Kotani K, Teramoto A (2018) Feasibility and usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist) in laparoscopic surgery. Visc Med 34:37–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Japanese Hernia Society (2009) The Japan Hernia Society (JHS) classification for groin hernia. http://jhs.mas-sys.com/classification.html. Accessed 1 March 2019

  9. Arezzo A, Schurr MO, Braun A, Buess GF (2005) Experimental assessment of a new mechanical endoscopic solosurgery system: Endofreeze. Surg Endosc 19:581–588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee YS, Jeon HG, Lee SR, Jeong WJ, Yang SC, Han WK (2010) The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 24:2755–2759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris SJ, Arambula-Cosio F, Mei Q, Hibberd RD, Davies BL, Wickham JE, Nathan MS, Kundu B (1997) The Probot-an active robot for prostate resection. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 211:317–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gagner M, Begin E, Hurteau R, Pomp A (1994) Robotic interactive laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet 343:596–597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Merola S, Weber P, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Comparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ohmura Y, Suzuki H, Kotani K, Teramoto A (2018) Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6506-4

  15. Omote K, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Arbter K, Wei GQ, Siewert JR, Hirzinger G (1999) Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. Am J Surg 177:321–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruurda JP, Visser PL, Broeders IA (2003) Analysis of procedure time in robot-assisted surgery: comparative study in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Comput Aided Surg 8:24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mizuno Y, Narimatsu H, Kodama Y, Matsumura T, Kami M (2014) Mid-career changes in the occupation or specialty among general surgeons, from youth to middle age, have accelerated the shortage of general surgeons in Japan. Surg Today 44:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marschall JG, Karimuddin AA (2003) Decline in popularity of general surgery as a career choice in North America: review of postgraduate residency training selection in Canada, 1996-2001. World J Surg 27:249–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conception and design, Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki, Kazutoshi Kotani, Atsushi Teramoto; acquisition of data, Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki; analysis and interpretation of data, Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki; drafting of manuscript, Yasushi Ohmura.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasushi Ohmura.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal right

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was indeed obtained from all individual participant included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(MP4 181,467 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohmura, Y., Suzuki, H., Kotani, K. et al. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®): retrospective comparative study with human assistant. Langenbecks Arch Surg 404, 495–503 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01793-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01793-y

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
  • Robotic scope holder
  • Soloassist
  • Solo-surgery