Literature DB >> 20973908

Comparison of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder with human assistants during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy.

Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg1, Toni Franz, Panagiotis Kallidonis, Do Minh, Anja Dietel, James Hicks, Martin Nicolaus, Abdulrahman Al-Aown, Evangelos Liatsikos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: • To assess, in a prospective randomized study, the efficiency of the FreeHand® (Prosurgics Ltd, Bracknell, UK) compared to manual camera control during the performance of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Three surgeons performed 50 EERPE for localized prostate cancer. In group A (n= 25), procedures were performed with manual control of the camera by the assistant, whereas group B (n= 25) patients were treated with the assistance of the FreeHand® robotic device. • The EERPE procedure was divided into several steps. • Total operation duration, time for each surgical step, number of camera movements, number of movement errors, number of times the lens was cleaned, blood loss and margin status were compared.
RESULTS: • No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of patient age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, positive cores and prostate volume. • The average operation duration required for the performance of each step did not differ significantly between the two groups. • Significant differences in favour of the FreeHand® camera holder were observed in case of horizontal and zooming camera movement, camera cleaning and camera errors. • Vertical camera movements were performed significantly faster by the human assistant compared to the robotic camera holder. • The average total operation duration was similar for both groups. • Positive surgical margins were detected in one patient in each group (4% of the patients).
CONCLUSIONS: • A comparison of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder with human camera control during EERPE showed a similar time requirement for the performance of each step of the procedure. • The robotic system provided accurate and fast movements of the camera without compromising the outcome of the procedure.
© 2010 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2010 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20973908     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09656.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  11 in total

1.  Locally operated assistant manipulators with selectable connection system for robotically assisted laparoscopic solo surgery.

Authors:  Shohei Fukui; Toshikazu Kawai; Yuji Nishizawa; Atsushi Nishikawa; Tatsuo Nakamura; Noriyasu Iwamoto; Yuki Horise; Ken Masamune
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Compact forceps manipulator with a spherical-coordinate linear and circular telescopic rail mechanism for endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Toshikazu Kawai; Hiroyuki Hayashi; Yuji Nishizawa; Atsushi Nishikawa; Ryoichi Nakamura; Hiroshi Kawahira; Masaaki Ito; Tatsuo Nakamura
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yasushi Ohmura; Hiromitsu Suzuki; Kazutoshi Kotani; Atsushi Teramoto
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device.

Authors:  Paul J M Wijsman; Ivo A M J Broeders; Hylke J Brenkman; Amir Szold; Antonello Forgione; Henk W R Schreuder; Esther C J Consten; Werner A Draaisma; Paul M Verheijen; Jelle P Ruurda; Yuval Kaufman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Review of emerging surgical robotic technology.

Authors:  Brian S Peters; Priscila R Armijo; Crystal Krause; Songita A Choudhury; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Surgical assistant manipulator with diagonal joints and multi-stage telescopic screws for laparoscopic solo surgery.

Authors:  Ayumu Sasaki; Toshikazu Kawai; Yuji Nishizawa; Atsushi Nishikawa; Tatsuo Nakamura
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Efficiency in image-guided robotic and conventional camera steering: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  P J M Wijsman; F J Voskens; L Molenaar; C D P van 't Hullenaar; E C J Consten; W A Draaisma; I A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Robotic single-port hernia surgery.

Authors:  Hanh Tran
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2011 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Evaluation of a remote-controlled laparoscopic camera holder for basic laparoscopic skills acquisition: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mohammad S A Amin; Abdullatif Aydin; Nurhan Abbud; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Domenico Veneziano; Bhaskar Somani; Ali Serdar Gözen; Juan Palou Redorta; M Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Jonathan Makanjuoala; Kamran Ahmed
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Evaluation of a robot-assisted video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery programme.

Authors:  Yong He; Amans Coonar; Sabin Gelvez-Zapata; Post Sastry; Archer Page
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 2.447

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.