Literature DB >> 23990155

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

Sonja Gillen1, Benedikt Pletzer, Arthur Heiligensetzer, Petra Wolf, Jörg Kleeff, Hubertus Feussner, Alois Fürst.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of a joystick-controlled camera holder (Soloassist; Actormed, Barbing, Germany) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy as so-called solo-surgery compared with the standard operation.
METHODS: Of the 123 patients included in this study, 63 underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the Soloassist system and were compared with 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with human assistance. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, body mass index, or American Society of Anesthesiology classification. The surgeons were divided into those highly experienced and those experienced with the new camera holder. The operation times were measured, including setup and dismantling of the system. The assessment also included complications, postoperative hospital stay, measurement of human resources in terms of personnel/minutes/operation, and subjective evaluation of the camera-guiding device by the surgeons.
RESULTS: The hospital stay and operation-related complications were not enhanced in the Soloassist group. The differences in core operation time (p = 0.008) and total operating time (p = 0.001) significantly favored the human assistant. Whereas the absolute duration of surgery was longer, the relative operating time (in personnel/minutes/operation) was significantly shorter (p < 0.001). In 4.8 % of the cases, the operation could not be performed completely with the camera-holding device. Clinically relevant postoperative complications did not occur. The experience of the surgeons did not differ significantly. The subjective evaluation regarding handling, image quality, effort, and satisfaction demonstrated high acceptance of the Soloassist system.
CONCLUSIONS: The camera-guiding device can be implemented without increased complications. The Soloassist system is safe and can be operated even by colleagues without system experience. All the surgeons rated their satisfaction with the system as very good to excellent. Although the operating times were longer than with the standard camera guidance, the absolute overall staff time was reduced.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23990155     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3142-x

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


  24 in total

1.  [Positioning systems for endoscopic solo surgery].

Authors:  A Arezzo; T Testa; F Ulmer; M O Schurr; M Degregori; G F Buess
Journal:  Minerva Chir       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.000

2.  Robotics in laparoscopic surgery: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  I A M J Broeders; J P Ruurda
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl       Date:  2002

3.  Comparison of task performance of the camera-holder robots EndoAssist and Aesop.

Authors:  Pedro Ballester Nebot; Yatin Jain; Kevin Haylett; Robert Stone; Rory McCloy
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.719

4.  A novel endoscope manipulator, Naviot, enables solo-surgery to be performed during video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Authors:  Ichiro Yoshino; Takeshi Yasunaga; Makoto Hashizume; Yoshihiko Maehara
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2005-06-22

5.  Laparoscopic visual field. Voice vs foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot.

Authors:  M E Allaf; S V Jackman; P G Schulam; J A Cadeddu; B R Lee; R G Moore; L R Kavoussi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  AESOP robotic arm.

Authors:  S W Unger; H M Unger; R T Bass
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The Probot--an active robot for prostate resection.

Authors:  S J Harris; F Arambula-Cosio; Q Mei; R D Hibberd; B L Davies; J E Wickham; M S Nathan; B Kundu
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.617

8.  Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  S Aiono; J M Gilbert; B Soin; P A Finlay; A Gordan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-06-14       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  The EndoAssist robotic camera holder as an aid to the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  J M Gilbert
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control .

Authors:  L R Kavoussi; R G Moore; J B Adams; A W Partin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  [Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?].

Authors:  H Feußner; D Wilhelm
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Technical and instrumental prerequisites for single-port laparoscopic solo surgery: state of art.

Authors:  Say-June Kim; Sang Chul Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  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

4.  Evaluation of a novel multi-articulated endoscope: proof of concept through a virtual simulation.

Authors:  Tuukka Karvonen; Yusuke Muranishi; Goshiro Yamamoto; Tomohiro Kuroda; Toshihiko Sato
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  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

6.  Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navigation skills: the SALAS score.

Authors:  T Huber; M Paschold; F Schneble; A Poplawski; F Huettl; F Watzka; H Lang; W Kneist
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  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

Review 8.  [Further technical and digital development in minimally invasive and conventional surgery].

Authors:  H Feussner; S B Reiser; M Bauer; M Kranzfelder; R Schirren; J Kleeff; D Wilhelm
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.955

9.  Development of a new endoscope holder for head and neck surgery--from the technical design concept to implementation.

Authors:  Julia Kristin; Armin Kolmer; Peter Kraus; Robert Geiger; Thomas Klenzner
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 10.  Advances in laparoscopic surgery in urology.

Authors:  Jens J Rassweiler; Dogu Teber
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.