Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 164–170 | Cite as

Solo-surgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a joystick-guided camera device: a case–control study

  • Sonja Gillen
  • Benedikt Pletzer
  • Arthur Heiligensetzer
  • Petra Wolf
  • Jörg Kleeff
  • Hubertus Feussner
  • Alois Fürst
Article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of a joystick-controlled camera holder (Soloassist; Actormed, Barbing, Germany) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy as so-called solo-surgery compared with the standard operation.

Methods

Of the 123 patients included in this study, 63 underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the Soloassist system and were compared with 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with human assistance. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, body mass index, or American Society of Anesthesiology classification. The surgeons were divided into those highly experienced and those experienced with the new camera holder. The operation times were measured, including setup and dismantling of the system. The assessment also included complications, postoperative hospital stay, measurement of human resources in terms of personnel/minutes/operation, and subjective evaluation of the camera-guiding device by the surgeons.

Results

The hospital stay and operation-related complications were not enhanced in the Soloassist group. The differences in core operation time (p = 0.008) and total operating time (p = 0.001) significantly favored the human assistant. Whereas the absolute duration of surgery was longer, the relative operating time (in personnel/minutes/operation) was significantly shorter (p < 0.001). In 4.8 % of the cases, the operation could not be performed completely with the camera-holding device. Clinically relevant postoperative complications did not occur. The experience of the surgeons did not differ significantly. The subjective evaluation regarding handling, image quality, effort, and satisfaction demonstrated high acceptance of the Soloassist system.

Conclusions

The camera-guiding device can be implemented without increased complications. The Soloassist system is safe and can be operated even by colleagues without system experience. All the surgeons rated their satisfaction with the system as very good to excellent. Although the operating times were longer than with the standard camera guidance, the absolute overall staff time was reduced.

Keywords

Cholecystectomy Human/robotic Surgical Training Camera holder Solo-surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partially funded by the LGA program, Leitprojekte Medizintechnik, No. TP81d/09-IBN/q-1726.

Disclosures

Sonja Gillen, Benedikt Pletzer, Arthur Heiligensetzer, Petra Wolf, Jörg Kleeff, Hubertus Feussner, and Alois Fürst have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Cleary K, Nguyen C (2001) State of the art in surgical robotics: clinical applications and technology challenges. Comput Aided Surg 6:312–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 211:317–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Challacombe BJ, Khan MS, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2006) The history of robotics in urology. World J Urol 24:120–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broeders IA, Ruurda JP (2002) Robotics in laparoscopic surgery: current status and future perspectives. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 236:76–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT (1994) AESOP robotic armc. Surg Endosc 8:1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okada S, Tanaba Y, Yamauchi H, Sato S (1998) Single-surgeon thoracoscopic surgery with a voice-controlled robot. Lancet 351:1249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 16:1267–1270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polet R, Donnez J (2008) Using a laparoscope manipulator (LAPMAN) in laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Surg Technol Int 17:187–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arezzo A, Testa T, Ulmer F, Schurr MO, Degregori M, Buess GF (2000) Positioning systems for endoscopic solo-surgery. Minerva Chir 55:635–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geis WP, Kim HC, Brennan EJ Jr, McAfee PC, Wang Y (1996) Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improved efficiency and decreased resource utilization in complex minimally invasive surgical procedures. Stud Health Technol Inform 29:471–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gilbert JM (2009) The EndoAssist robotic camera holder as an aid to the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91:389–393PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allaf ME, Jackman SV, Schulam PG, Cadeddu JA, Lee BR, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1998) Laparoscopic visual field: voice vs foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot. Surg Endosc 12:1415–1418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nebot PB, Jain Y, Haylett K, Stone R, McCloy R (2003) Comparison of task performance of the camera-holder robots EndoAssist and Aesop. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 13:334–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154:2134–2136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 177:321–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraft BM, Jager 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 18:1216–1223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring: review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 16:1389–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaspers JE, Breedveld P, Herder JL, Grimbergen CA (2004) Camera and instrument holders and their clinical value in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:145–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Long JA, Descotes JL, Skowron O, Troccaz J, Cinquin P, Boillot B, Terrier N, Rambeaud JJ (2006) Use of robotics in laparoscopic urological surgery: state of the art. Prog Urol 16:3–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoshino I, Yasunaga T, Hashizume M, Maehara Y (2005) A novel endoscope manipulator, Naviot, enables solo-surgery to be performed during video-assisted thoracic surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 4:404–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tanoue K, Yasunaga T, Kobayashi E, Miyamoto S, Sakuma I, Dohi T, Konishi K, Yamaguchi S, Kinjo N, Takenaka K, Maehara Y, Hashizume M (2006) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a newly developed laparoscope manipulator for 10 patients with cholelithiasis. Surg Endosc 20:753–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reichenspurner H, Boehm DH, Welz A, Schulze C, Zwissler B, Reichart B (1998) 3D-video- and robot-assisted minimally invasive ASD closure using the Port-Access techniques. Heart Surg Forum 1:104–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kristin J, Geiger R, Knapp FB, Schipper J, Klenzner T (2011) Use of a mechatronic robotic camera holding system in head and neck surgery. HNO 59:575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herman B, Dehez B, Duy KT, Raucent B, Dombre E, Krut S (2009) Design and preliminary in vivo validation of a robotic laparoscope holder for minimally invasive surgery. Int J Med Robot 5:319–326PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja Gillen
    • 1
  • Benedikt Pletzer
    • 2
  • Arthur Heiligensetzer
    • 2
  • Petra Wolf
    • 3
  • Jörg Kleeff
    • 1
  • Hubertus Feussner
    • 1
  • Alois Fürst
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryCaritas-Krankenhaus St. JosefRegensburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Klinikum rechts der IsarTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations