BACKGROUND: The efficacy of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RLC). Surgical trainees performed the LC to avoid the surgeon's experience bias. METHODS: Two surgical trainees performed 10 CLCs and 10 RLCs at random with a Zeus-Aesop Surgical Robotic System. The primary efficacy parameters were the total time and the number of actions involved in the procedure. The secondary parameters were setup and dissection times, and the number of grasping and dissection actions. Surgical complications were evaluated. RESULTS: For CLC and RLC, respectively, the total times were 95.4 +/- 28 min and 123.5 +/- 33.3 min and the total actions were 420 +/- 176.3 and 363.5 +/- 158.2. For CLC, the times required for setup (21 +/- 10.4 min) and dissection (50.2 +/- 17.7 min) were less than for RLC (33.8 +/- 11.3 min and 72 +/- 24.3 min, respectively). The numbers of grasping and dissection actions were not significantly different: 41.4 +/- 26.5 and 378 +/- 173.7, respectively, for CLC versus 48.9 +/- 27 and 314.6 +/- 141.9, respectively, for RLC. CONCLUSION: Although feasible, RLC requires significantly more time than CLC because of slower performed actions.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RLC). Surgical trainees performed the LC to avoid the surgeon's experience bias. METHODS: Two surgical trainees performed 10 CLCs and 10 RLCs at random with a Zeus-Aesop Surgical Robotic System. The primary efficacy parameters were the total time and the number of actions involved in the procedure. The secondary parameters were setup and dissection times, and the number of grasping and dissection actions. Surgical complications were evaluated. RESULTS: For CLC and RLC, respectively, the total times were 95.4 +/- 28 min and 123.5 +/- 33.3 min and the total actions were 420 +/- 176.3 and 363.5 +/- 158.2. For CLC, the times required for setup (21 +/- 10.4 min) and dissection (50.2 +/- 17.7 min) were less than for RLC (33.8 +/- 11.3 min and 72 +/- 24.3 min, respectively). The numbers of grasping and dissection actions were not significantly different: 41.4 +/- 26.5 and 378 +/- 173.7, respectively, for CLC versus 48.9 +/- 27 and 314.6 +/- 141.9, respectively, for RLC. CONCLUSION: Although feasible, RLC requires significantly more time than CLC because of slower performed actions.
Authors: K T den Boer; I H Straatsburg; A V Schellinger; L T de Wit; J Dankelman; D J Gouma Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: W Scott Melvin; Bradley J Needleman; Kevin R Krause; Carol Schneider; E Christopher Ellison Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: G B Cadière; J Himpens; O Germay; R Izizaw; M Degueldre; J Vandromme; E Capelluto; J Bruyns Journal: World J Surg Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: R J Damiano; H A Tabaie; M J Mack; J R Edgerton; C Mullangi; W P Graper; S M Prasad Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jin Hong Lim; Woo Jung Lee; Dong Won Park; Hye Jin Yea; Se Hoon Kim; Chang Moo Kang Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ji Hun Kim; Nam Hyun Baek; Guangyl Li; Seung Hui Choi; In Ho Jeong; Jae Chul Hwang; Jin Hong Kim; Byung Moo Yoo; Wook Hwan Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 5.742