Literature DB >> 12140630

Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results.

G H Ballantyne1.   

Abstract

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly became the standard of care for the surgical treatment of cholelithiasis, very few other abdominal or cardiac operations are currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. The inherent limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery make it difficult to perform these operations. We, and others, have attempted to use robotic technology to (a) provide a stable camera platform, (b) replace two-dimensional with three-dimensional (3-D) imaging, (c) simulate the fluid motions of a surgeon's wrist to overcome the motion limitations of straight laparoscopic instruments, and (d) offer the surgeon a comfortable, ergonomically optimal operating position. In this article, we review the early published clinical experience with surgical robotic and telerobotic systems and assess their current limitations. The voice-controlled AESOP robot replaces the cameraperson and facilitates the performance of solo-surgeon laparoscopic operations. AESOP provides a stable camera platform and avoids motion sickness in the operative team. The telerobotic Zeus and da Vinci surgical systems permit solo surgery by a surgeon from a remote sight. These telerobots hold the camera, replace the surgeon's two hands with robotic instruments, and serve in a master-slave relationship for the surgeon. Their robotic instruments simulate the motions of the surgeon's wrist, facilitating dissection. Both telerobots use 3-D imaging to immerse the surgeon in a three-dimensional video operating field. These robots also provide operating positions for the surgeon console that are ergonomically superior to those required by traditional laparoscopy. The technological advances of these telerobots now permit telepresence surgery from remote locations, even locations thousands of miles away. In addition, telepresence permits the telementoring of novice surgeons who are performing new procedures by expert surgeons in remote locations. The studies reviewed here indicate that robotics and telerobotics offer potential solutions to the inherent problems of traditional laparoscopic surgery, as well as new possibilities for telesurgery and telementoring. Nonetheless, these technologies are still in an early stage of development, and each device entails its own set of challenges and limitations for actual use in clinical settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12140630     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-8283-7

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


  111 in total

1.  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

2.  Early results of one-year robotic surgery using the Da Vinci system to perform advanced laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Ahmet Ayav; Laurent Bresler; Laurent Brunaud; Patrick Boissel
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  [Interdisciplinary surgery and telemedicine].

Authors:  P M Schlag; M Hünerbein; C Ulmer; G Graschew
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Robotic surgery update.

Authors:  G Jacobsen; F Elli; S Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-04-21       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Telesurgical evaluation of stable thoracic trauma patients: a feasibility study.

Authors:  P D Bhatia; D A Bottoni; R A Malthaner
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 3.693

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

Authors:  Sonja Gillen; Benedikt Pletzer; Arthur Heiligensetzer; Petra Wolf; Jörg Kleeff; Hubertus Feussner; Alois Fürst
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case-control study of 263 patients.

Authors:  Neel Maria Helvind; Jens Ravn Eriksen; Anders Mogensen; Buket Tas; Jesper Olsen; Mads Bundgaard; Henrik Loft Jakobsen; Ismail Gögenür
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  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

Review 9.  Robotic pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices.

Authors:  Carlo C Passerotti; Felipe Franco; Julio C C Bissoli; Bruno Tiseo; Caio M Oliveira; Carlos A O Buchalla; Gustavo N C Inoue; Arzu Sencan; Aydin Sencan; Rogerio Ruscitto do Pardo; Hiep T Nguyen
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.