Feasibility of robot-assisted laparoscopic intestinal anastomosis; an experimental study in pigs

  • J. P. Ruurda
  • I. A. M. J. Broeders
Conference paper


Robotic telemanipulation systems have been introduced recently to enhance the surgeon’s dexterity and visualisation in videoscopic surgery, facilitating microscopic suturing and knot tying. The aim of this study was to demonstrate technical feasibility of performing a safe and efficient robot assisted handsewn laparoscopic intestinal anastomosis in a pig model. Thirty intestinal anastomoses were performed. Twenty anastomoses were performed laparoscopically with the da Vinci robotic system, the remaining 10 anastomoses by laparotomy. OR-time, anastomosis-time and complications were recorded. Effectiveness of the laparoscopic anastomoses was evaluated by postoperative observation of 10/20 pigs for 14 days and by testing mechanical integrity in all pigs by measuring passage, circumference, number of stitches and bursting-pressure. These parameters and anastomosis time were compared to the anastomoses performed by laparotomy. In all cases the procedure was completed laparoscopically. The only peroperative complication was an intestinal perforation, caused by an assisting instrument. The median procedure time was 77 minutes. Anastomosis time was longer in the laparoscopic cases than in the controls (25 vs 10 minutes; p<0,001). Postoperatively, one pig developed an ileus, based on a herniation of spiral colon through a trocar-port. For this reason it was terminated on the sixth postoperative day. All anastomoses were mechanical intact and all parameters were comparable to those of the open procedures. Technical feasibility of performing a safe and efficient robot assisted laparoscopic intestinal anastomosis in a pig model was repeatedly demonstrated in this study, with a reasonable time required for the anastomosis.

Key words

Robotics anastomosis intestine 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hanisch, E., Markus, B., Gutt, C., Schmandra, T. C., and Encke, A. [Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy and fundoplication--initial experiences with the Da Vinci system]. Chirurg: 72; 286–8. 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Himpens, J., Leman, G., and Cadiere, G. B. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy [letter].Surg.Endosc.: 12; 1091. 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollands, C. M., Dixey, L. N., and Torma, M. J. Technical assessment of porcine enteroenterostomy performed with ZEUS robotic technology. J.Pediatr.Surg.: 36; 1231–3. 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lomanto, D., Cheah, W. K., So, J. B., and Goh, P. M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study. Arch.Surg.: 136; 1106–8. 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meininger, D., Byhahn, C., Markus, B. H., Heller, K., and Westphal, K. [Total endoscopic Nissen fundoplication with the robotic device “da Vinci” in children. Hemodynamics, gas exchange, and anesthetic management]. Anaesthesist: 50; 271–5. 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broeders, I. A. M. J. and Ruurda, J. P. Robotics revolutionizing surgery: the Intuitive Surgical “da Vinci” system. Industrial Robot: 28; 387–91. 1-8-2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cadiere, G. B., Himpens, J., Vertruyen, M., Bruyns, J., Germay, O., Leman, G., and Izizaw, R. Evaluation of telesurgical (robotic) NISSEN fundoplication. Surg.Endosc.: 15; 918–23. 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruurda, J. P. and Broeders, I. A. M. J. Feasibility of robot assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. proceedings CARS 2001, ed Lemke, HU ea.; 159–64.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azurin, D. J., Go, L. S., Arroyo, L. R., and Kirkland, M. L. Trocar site herniation following laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the significance of an incidental preexisting umbilical hernia. Am.Surg.: 61; 718–20. 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fritsch, S., Fourquier, P., Gossot, D., Colomer, S., Celerier, M., and Revillon, Y.[Laparoscopic manual intestinal anastomosis: experimental study in a pig model]. Ann.Chir: 52; 574–7. 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kockerling, F., Rose, J., Schneider, C., Scheidbach, H., Scheuerlein, H., Reymond, M. A., Reck, T., Konradt, J., Bruch, H. P., Zornig, C., Barlehner, E., Kuthe, A., Szinicz, G., Richter, H. A., and Hohenberger, W. Laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis: risk of postoperative leakage. Results of a multicenter study. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group (LCSSG). Surg.Endosc.: 13; 639–44. 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nezhat, C., Nezhat, F., Seidman, D. S., and Nezhat, C. Incisional hernias after operative laparoscopy. J.Laparoendosc.Adv.Surg.Tech.A: 7; 111–5. 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Msika, S., Iannelli, A., Marano, A., Zeitoun, G., Deroide, G., Kianmanesh, R., Flamant, Y., and Hay, J. M. [Hand-sewn intra-abdominal anastomosis performed via video laparoscopy during colorectal surgery]. Ann.Chir: 125; 439–43. 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bohm, B., Milsom, J. W., Stolfi, V. M., and Kitago, K. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal intestinal anastomosis. Surg.Endosc: 7; 194–6. 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fingerhut, A., Hay, J. M., Elhadad, A., Lacaine, F., and Flamant, Y. Supraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: hand-sewn versus circular staples--a controlled clinical trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Surgery: 118; 479–85. 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. P. Ruurda
    • 1
  • I. A. M. J. Broeders
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity Medical Centre Utrecht, the NetherlandsUtrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations