Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Origins of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery and Their Impact on Surgical Practice: A Sociological, Technological History

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Surgery

  • 215 Accesses

Abstract

The origins of these new technologies may, in the broadest sense, have begun in pre-history but definitely appear in antiquity. Their conception and development span more than 2000 years.

The period of major development for Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) awaited the arrival of the endoscope in the early nineteenth century. The other giant steps along with allied instruments and devices occurred in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Robotic Surgery (RS) appeared far more recently and functionally, that is, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Further refinements in both “New Surgeries” are ongoing.

The MIS/RS revolution was accompanied by a host of learned activities, special medical meetings, societies, books, and diverse academic pursuits.

The Heros, Inventors, and Discoverers from Bozzini, Forlanini, and Semm to the frontiers-shattering Marescaux’s Lindberg Operation and their contributions are recognized. The reader will find The Societies and their role in guiding the new surgery.

Their impact on surgical practice and patient care with concomitant emphasis on education and training and research for the new surgery is covered along with the issues of quality and quantity and advantages and disadvantages. For perhaps the first time in medical innovation, there has been an unprecedented interest and acceptance by industry and the public in the new surgery. The controversies, mainly cost issues, and their importance are covered.

The future with technology and application refinements as well as the quest for the Ultimate Robot is left in the hands of the old and new practitioners.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ember CR. Ethnology. 1978 17(4) 439–4482.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Capek Karel, Czech playwright, Rossums Universal Robots.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Steadman’s Medical Dictionary 27th Ed Lippincott, Williams, Wilkins Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heron 3rd Century Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Quintus Septimus Tertullian (US), De Anima, Chap 6, Sec 3, C 155—220 AD, Michael Byron’s, The Puppet Theater in Antiquity.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Abingdon, Oxon: Hilicon, Pub; 546.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Al Jazari, His Book; Hill DR Translator and Editor: The Book of Ingenious Mechanical Devices.

    Google Scholar 

  8. I Roboti di Leonardo (da Vinci’s Robots) Taddei, Mario Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A Brief History of Slavery, New Internationalist Issues 337; August 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jacob MC. Scientific culture and the making of the industrial west: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Edwin Smith Papyrus (1700—1600 BC Egypt).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sperati G. Philipp Bozzini and the origin of the endoscope. Acta Otorhinolaringol Ital. 2002 Feb;22(1):42–6.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nezhat C. Nezhat’s history of endoscopy, let there be light: a historical analysis of endoscopy’s ascension since antiquity. Appleton and Lang: Norwalk—Pub; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ott DO. Ventroscopic illumination of the abdominal cavity in pregnancy. Z Akush Zbenskikl Boleznei. 1901;15:7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Litynski GS. The early attempts spotlighting George Kelling and Hans Christian Jacobaeus. JSLS. 1997;1(1):83–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernheim BH Organoscopy, cystoscopy of the abdominal cavity, Ann Surg 1911 V 53(6); 764—767.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy. 1983;15(2):59–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Litynski GS. Kurt Semm and the fight against skepticism: endoscopic appendectomy and Semm’s impact on the laparoscopic revolution. JSLS. 1998;2(3):309–13.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lukichev OD, Filimonov MI, Zybin IM. A method of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Kirurgia (Mosk). 1983;8:125–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Palmer R. Safety in laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1974;13:1): 1–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tarasconi JC. Endoscopic salpingectomy. J Reprod Med. 1981;26(10):541–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. WWW Computer History/Timeline.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Satava RM. The early chronicles: a personal historical perspective, E Publication: Web Surg.com. 2006;6(10).

  24. Wang Y, Sakier J. Robotically enhanced surgery from concept to development. Surg Endosc. 1994;8:63–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Himpins J, Leman J, Cardiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:1091–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Reichenspurner H, Boehm DH, Gulbins H, et al. Robotically assisted endoscopic coronary bypass procedures without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorax Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118:960–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Marescaux J, LeRoy J, Gagner M, et al. Transatlantic robot assisted telesurgery. Nature. 2001;413(6854):379–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Belsley S, Byer A, Ballantyne GH. MIRA and the future of surgical robotics. Int J Med Rob Comp Assit Surg. 2006;2:98–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Satava RM. Advanced technologies and the future of medicine and surgery. Yonsei Med J. 2008;59(6):873–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ewing DR, Pigazzi A, Wang Y, Ballantyne GH. Robots in the OR; the history, seminars, and laparoscopic. Surg. 2004;11(2):63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Warren J, Da Silva M, Caumartin Y, Luk PPW. Robotic renal surgery; the future or a passing curiosity? Can Yurol Assoc J. 2009;3(3):231–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Munver R, Jayaratna I, Disick GI, Ballantyne GH, Jabush JH, Byer A, Sawczuk I. Multidisciplinary Patterns of Robotic Technology; The Hackensack University Medical Center Experience: Abstract and Presentation at Third MIRA International Congress, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Marescaux J, Rubino F. The ZEUS robotic system: experimental and clinical applications. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83(6):1305–15. Vii–Viii.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prasad SM, Prasad SN, Maniar HS, et al. Surgical robotics: impact of motion scaling on task performance. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(6):863–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Moorthy K, Munzy DAM, et al. Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(5):790–5. E Pub 2004 April 6th.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Belsley S, Byer A, Ballantyne GH. Oncologic telerobotic surgery. Oncology. 2006;21(4):22–5.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence and telementoring. Review of the early clinical results. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(10):1389–94. E Pub 2002 July 29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. VanHaasteren G. Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment. Pediatric. 2009;124:1642–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayal, et al. Efficacy of the da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tholey G, Desai JP, Castellanos AE. Force feedback plays a significant role in minimally invasive surgery; results and analysis. Ann Surg. 2005;241:102–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Mennon M, et al. Comparing robotic vs. open prostate surgery. Henry Ford Vattikuti Institute Website—7, references—J Urol, J Endourol, BJ Urol.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gaia G, Holloway R, Santoro L, et al. Robotic assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1422–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Boggess JF, Gherig PA, Cantrell L, et al. A case controlled study of robot assisted type 3 radical hysterectomy with pelvic node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(4):357–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nezhat FR, Datta NS, Liu C, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS. 2008;12(3):227–37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Di Lorenzo N, Koscarella G, Faraci L, et al. Robotic systems and surgical education. SLS. 2005;9(1):3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Suzuki S, Suzuki N, Hayashibie N, et al. Telesurgical simulation system for training in the use of da Vinci surgery. Stud Health Technol/Inform. 2005;111:543–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Weiss S, Ortmaier P, Maas H, et al. A virtual reality base haptic surgical training system. Comput Aided Surg. 2003;8(5):269–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ro CY, Toumpoulis IK, Aston TC Jr, et al. A novel drill set for the enhancement and assessment of robotic surgical performance. Stud Health Technol/Inform. 2005;111:418–21.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Seymour NE, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skills. Am Surg. 2002;236:458–64.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wang DS, Winfield HN. Survey of laparoscopic practice patterns in the midwest. J Urol. 2004;172:1431–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Multi-authored (22). The SAGES—MIRA Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Guidelines for usage of robotic surgery. (1) training/credentialing, (2) clinical applications, (3) risks of surgery and cost benefits analysis, (4) research. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(2):313–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gabriel I, Barbash, Glied SA. New technology and healthcare costs—the case of robotic assisted surgery. NEJM. 2010. Topics of Healthcare.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shukla PI, Schear DS, Milsom JW. Robot assisted surgery and healthcare costs. NEJM. 2010. Correspondence.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Morgan JA, et al. Robotic techniques improve the quality of life in patients undergoing atrial—septal defect repair. Ann Thoracic Surg. 2004;77(4):1328–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Robotic surgery of ‘tremendous benefit’ to patients. ScienceDaily [Internet]. 2011. Available from: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110112161000.htm

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA

    Arnold Byer

Authors
  1. Arnold Byer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Advanced Thoracic Surgery, Global Robotics Institute Advent Health Celebration, Celebration, FL, USA

    Farid Gharagozloo

  2. Global Robotics Institute, Advent Health Celebration, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul R. Patel

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti

  4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Three Crosses Regional Hospital, Las Cruces, NM, USA

    Robert Poston

  5. Department of Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Rainer Gruessner

  6. Department of Surgery, Wellington Regional Medical Center, Wellington, FL, USA

    Mark Meyer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Byer, A. (2021). The Origins of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery and Their Impact on Surgical Practice: A Sociological, Technological History. In: Gharagozloo, F., Patel, V.R., Giulianotti, P.C., Poston, R., Gruessner, R., Meyer, M. (eds) Robotic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53594-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-53593-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-53594-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation