Literature DB >> 16754625

Robotics and telesurgery--an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

J Rassweiler1, K C Safi, S Subotic, D Teber, T Frede.   

Abstract

Laparoscopy is handicapped by the reduction of the range of motion from six to only four degrees of freedom. In complicated cases (i.e. radical prostatectomy), there is often a crossing of the hands of surgeon and assistant. Finally, standard laparoscopes allow only 2D-vision. This has a major impact on technically difficult reconstructive procedures such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Solutions include the understanding of the geometry of laparoscopy, but also newly developed surgical robots. During the last five years, there has been an increasing development and experience with robotics in urology. This article reviews the actual results focussing on the benefits and problems of robotics in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Own experiences with robot-assisted surgery include more than 1200 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies using a voice-controlled camera-arm (AESOP) as well as six telesurgical interventions with the da Vinci-system. Substantial experimental studies have been performed focussing on the geometry of laparoscopy and new training concepts such as perfused pelvitrainers and models for simulation of urethrovesical anastomosis. The recent literature on robotics in urology has been reviewed based on a MEDLINE/PUBMED research. The geometry of laparoscopy includes the angles between the instruments which have to be in a range of 25 degrees to 45 degrees ; the angles between the instrument and the working plane that should not exceed 55 degrees ; and the bi-planar angle between the shaft of the needle holder and the needle which has to be adapted according to the anatomical situation in range of 90 degrees to 110 degrees . 3-D-systems have not yet proved to be effective due to handling problems such as shutter glasses, video helmets or reduced brightness. At the moment, there are only two robotic surgical systems (AESOP, da Vinci) in clinical use, of which only the da Vinci provides stereovision and all six degrees of freedom (DOF). To date, more than 3000 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies have been performed worldwide at 92 centres with this system. The main advantage of the system represents the translation of open surgical skills to laparoscopy. Despite recent development of basic tools (e.g. bipolar forceps) for the da Vinci robot, investment and maintenance costs still represent the major problem of the device. Additionally, the device does not provide any haptic sense (i.e. tactile feedback). Robotic surgery represents a turning point of surgical research. However, broad use of robotic systems is limited mainly because of the high investment and running costs. Interestingly, more than in the field of cardiac surgery, there seems to be a need for telemanipulators in urology, mainly to reduce the learning curve of standard laparoscopy. However, new training concepts used in combination with mono-tasking computerized robots (AESOP) have proved their efficacy associated with a significant cost reduction.

Entities:  

Year:  2005        PMID: 16754625     DOI: 10.1080/13645700510010908

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol        ISSN: 1364-5706            Impact factor:   2.442


  13 in total

Review 1.  Status of robotic assistance--a less traumatic and more accurate minimally invasive surgery?

Authors:  H G Kenngott; L Fischer; F Nickel; J Rom; J Rassweiler; B P Müller-Stich
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  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

3.  Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Visual clues act as a substitute for haptic feedback in robotic surgery.

Authors:  M E Hagen; J J Meehan; I Inan; P Morel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Current status of robotic surgery.

Authors:  Subhasis Giri; Diptendra K Sarkar
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 6.  Prevalence of haptic feedback in robot-mediated surgery: a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Farshid Amirabdollahian; Salvatore Livatino; Behrad Vahedi; Radhika Gudipati; Patrick Sheen; Shan Gawrie-Mohan; Nikhil Vasdev
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-12-01

7.  The incidence and anatomy of accessory pudendal arteries as depicted on multidetector-row CT angiography: clinical implications of preoperative evaluation for laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Beom Jin Park; Deuk Jae Sung; Min Ju Kim; Sung Bum Cho; Yun Hwan Kim; Kyoo Byung Chung; Seok Ho Kang; Jun Cheon
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.500

8.  The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference.

Authors:  Steven D Wexner; Roberto Bergamaschi; Antonio Lacy; Jonas Udo; Hans Brölmann; Robin H Kennedy; Hubert John
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Extending the body to virtual tools using a robotic surgical interface: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task.

Authors:  Ali Sengül; Michiel van Elk; Giulio Rognini; Jane Elizabeth Aspell; Hannes Bleuler; Olaf Blanke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  [Not Available].

Authors:  James G Bittner; Christopher A Hathaway; James A Brown
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.407

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.