Literature DB >> 11928018

Efficiency of manual versus robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks.

D Nio1, W A Bemelman, K T Boer, M S Dunker, D J Gouma, T M Gulik.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery.
METHODS: To evaluate the surgical efficiency in a set of basic endoscopic movements, 20 medical students without any surgical experience were selected to perform at random a set of laparoscopic tasks either manually or robotic assisted (Zeus). This task consisted of dropping beads into receptacles, running a 25-cm rope, capping a hypodermic needle, suturing, and performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a cadaver liver of a pig. A quantitative time-action analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and skill performance in terms of time and the number of actions.
RESULTS: The dropping beads exercise and the laparoscopic cholecystectomy required more time when performed with robotic assistance, as compared with manual performance (respectively, median, 78.5 s; range, 63 - 122 s vs median, 144.5 s; range, 100 - 169 s; p <0.01 and median, 34.0 min; range 11-44 min vs median, 46.5 s; range, 21 - 79 min; p = 0.05). A tendency toward fewer total actions in all the robotically assisted exercises was observed. However, significance was shown only in the rope-passing task (median, 71; range, 59 - 87 vs median, 62; range, 57-80; p = 0.05). Grasping the beads, the rope, and either the needle or the cap were tasks that required fewer actions to complete when performed with robotically assistance (respectively, median, 11; range, 10 - 14 vs median, 12.5; range, 11 - 15; p <0.01; median, 56; range, 55 - 60 vs median, 60.5 min; range, 55 - 65; p = 0.03, and median, 6; range, 4 - 21 vs median, 10.5; range, 6 - 38; p = 0.02). As compared with the robotically assisted rope-passing exercise, more failures were made in the manually performed procedure (p = 0.03), mainly caused by unintentional dropping of the rope (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery by participants without any surgical experience might require more time, but actions can be performed equally or more precisely as compared with manual laparoscopic surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11928018     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-9012-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  26 in total

1.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study.

Authors:  D Nio; W A Bemelman; O R C Busch; B C Vrouenraets; D J Gouma
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-01-14       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system.

Authors:  G Hubens; H Coveliers; L Balliu; M Ruppert; W Vaneerdeweg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill.

Authors:  L Chang; R M Satava; C A Pellegrini; M N Sinanan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-09-10       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Manual robot assisted endoscopic suturing: time-action analysis in an experimental model.

Authors:  J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders; B Pulles; F M Kappelhof; C van der Werken
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Laparoscopic vascular anastomoses: does robotic (Zeus-Aesop) assistance help to overcome the learning curve?

Authors:  D Nio; W A Bemelman; R Balm; D A Legemate
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-05-26       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A critical comparison of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic splenectomies.

Authors:  Johannes Bodner; Reinhold Kafka-Ritsch; Paolo Lucciarini; John H Fish; Thomas Schmid
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Clinical characteristics of remote Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a report of 40 cases.

Authors:  Han-Xin Zhou; Yue-Hua Guo; Xiao-Fang Yu; Shi-Yun Bao; Jia-Lin Liu; Yue Zhang; Yong-Gong Ren; Qun Zheng
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  The mechanical master-slave manipulator: an instrument improving the performance in standardized tasks for endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  J Diks; J E N Jaspers; W Wisselink; B A M J de Mol; C A Grimbergen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-02-06       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Recent in vivo surgical robot and mechanism developments.

Authors:  M E Rentschler; D Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-19       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Vision and task assistance using modular wireless in vivo surgical robots.

Authors:  Stephen R Platt; Jeff A Hawks; Mark E Rentschler
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 4.538

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.