Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficiency in image-guided robotic and conventional camera steering: a prospective randomized controlled trial

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Robotic camera steering systems have been developed to facilitate endoscopic surgery. In this study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare conventional human camera control with the AutoLap™ robotic camera holder in terms of efficiency and user experience when performing routine laparoscopic procedures. Novelty of this system relates to the steering method, which is image based.

Methods

Patients undergoing an elective laparoscopic hemicolectomy, sigmoid resection, fundoplication and cholecystectomy between September 2016 and January 2018 were included. Stratified block randomization was used for group allocation. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of robotic and human camera control, measured with surgical team size and total operating time. Secondary outcome parameters were number of cleaning moments of the laparoscope and the post-study system usability questionnaire.

Results

A total of 100 patients were randomized to have robotic (50) versus human (50) camera control. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. In the robotic group, 49/50 (98%) of procedures were carried out without human camera control, reducing the surgical team size from four to three individuals. The median total operative time (60.0 versus 53.0 min, robotic vs. control) was not significantly different, p = 0.122. The questionnaire showed a positive user satisfaction and easy control of the robotic camera holder.

Conclusion

Image-based robotic camera control can reduce surgical team size and does not result in significant difference in operative time compared to human camera control. Moreover, robotic image-guided camera control was associated with positive user experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 Other Interv Tech 16:1267–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-9174-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beckmeier L, Klapdor R, Soergel P, Kundu S, Hillemanns P, Hertel H (2014) Evaluation of active camera control systems in gynecological surgery: construction, handling, comfort, surgeries and results. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:341–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3004-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 Other Interv Tech 28:164–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3142-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalteis M, Pistrich R, Schimetta W, Polz W (2007) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as solo surgery with the aid of a robotic camera holder: a case-control study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:277–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31806030ae

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Proske JM, Dagher I, Franco D (2004) Comparative study of human and robotic camera control in laparoscopic biliary and colon surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14:345–348. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2004.14.345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stolzenburg JU, Franz T, Kallidonis P, Minh D, Dietel A, Hicks J, Nicolaus M, Al-Aown A, Liatsikos E (2011) Comparison of the FreeHand?? robotic camera holder with human assistants during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 107:970–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09656.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maheshwari M, Ind T (2015) Concurrent use of a robotic uterine manipulator and a robotic laparoscope holder to achieve assistant-less solo laparoscopy: the double ViKY. J Robot Surg 9:211–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0518-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wijsman PJM, Molenaar L, Van’t Hullenaar CDP, van Vugt BST, Bleeker WA, Draaisma WA, Broeders IAMJ (2019) Ergonomics in handheld and robot-assisted camera control: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06678-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhou XY, Guo Y, Shen M, Yang GZ (2020) Application of artificial intelligence in surgery. Front Med 14:417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-020-0770-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang J, Gao X (2020) Object extraction via deep learning-based marker-free tracking framework of surgical instruments for laparoscope-holder robots. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 15:1335–1345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-020-02214-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wijsman PJM, Broeders IAMJ, Brenkman HJ, Szold A, Forgione A, Schreuder HWR, Consten ECJ, Draaisma WA, Verheijen PM, Ruurda JP, Kaufman Y (2018) First experience with THE AUTOLAPTM SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device. Surg Endosc 32:2560–2566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5957-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lewis JR (2002) Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 463:488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.9669130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis JR (1992) Psychometric evaluation of the post-study system usability questionnaire: the PSSUQ. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 36:1259–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129203601617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5058-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tuschy B, Berlit S, Brade J, Sütterlin M, Hornemann A (2014) Solo surgery–early results of robot-assisted three-dimensional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 23:230–234. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2014.893890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Partin AW (1995) Urologists at work comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154:2134–2136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Samar AM, Bond A, Ranaboldo C (2020) Comparison of FreeHand® robot-assisted with human-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2020.1771373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ohmura Y, Suzuki H, Kotani K, Teramoto A (2019) Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 33:2206–2216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6506-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-9200-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rade M, Birkett D, Sherman J, Nepomnayshy D (2020) Evaluation of a stand-alone robotic camera holding system: technology that improves laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2020.1806078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stott MC, Barrie J, Sebastien D, Hammill C, Subar DA (2017) Is the use of a robotic camera holder economically viable? A cost comparison of surgical assistant versus the use of a robotic camera holder in laparoscopic liver resections. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 27:375–378. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Genc V, Sulaimanov M, Cipe G, Basceken SI, Erverdi N, Gurel M, Aras N, Hazinedaroglu SM (2011) What necessitates the conversion to open cholecystectomy? A retrospective analysis of 5164 consecutive laparoscopic operations. Clinics 66:417–420. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322011000300009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu X, Bin LJ, Shi G, Guo R, Zhang R (2018) Systematic review of single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1521-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Feo CF, Paliogiannis P, Fancellu A, Zinellu A, Ginesu GC, Feo CV, Porcu A (2021) Laparoscopic versus open transverse-incision approach for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 57:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57010080

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Mr. Michael Orrell from Oxford University Hospitals. We would like to thank him for his advice and comments relating to the English language and grammar used in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

    P. J. M. Wijsman, F. J. Voskens, L. Molenaar, E. C. J. Consten & I. A. M. J. Broeders

  2. Magnetic Detection & Imaging, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    L. Molenaar

  3. Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

    P. J. M. Wijsman & W. A. Draaisma

  4. Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    P. J. M. Wijsman & I. A. M. J. Broeders

  5. Department of Surgery, Het Van Weel Bethesda Ziekenhuis, Dirksland, The Netherlands

    C. D. P. van ‘t Hullenaar

Authors
  1. P. J. M. Wijsman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. J. Voskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Molenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. D. P. van ‘t Hullenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. C. J. Consten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. W. A. Draaisma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. I. A. M. J. Broeders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. A. M. J. Broeders.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wijsman, P.J.M., Voskens, F.J., Molenaar, L. et al. Efficiency in image-guided robotic and conventional camera steering: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 36, 2334–2340 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08508-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08508-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation