Literature DB >> 25419950

Robotic Camera Assistance and Its Benefit in 1033 Traditional Laparoscopic Procedures: Prospective Clinical Trial Using a Joystick-guided Camera Holder.

Sebastian W Holländer1, Hans Joachim Klingen1, Marliese Fritz1, Peter Djalali1, Dieter Birk1.   

Abstract

Despite advances in instruments and techniques in laparoscopic surgery, one thing remains uncomfortable: the camera assistance. The aim of this study was to investigate the benefit of a joystick-guided camera holder (SoloAssist®, Aktormed, Barbing, Germany) for laparoscopic surgery and to compare the robotic assistance to human assistance. 1033 consecutive laparoscopic procedures were performed assisted by the SoloAssist®. Failures and aborts were documented and nine surgeons were interviewed by questionnaire regarding their experiences. In 71 of 1033 procedures, robotic assistance was aborted and the procedure was continued manually, mostly because of frequent changes of position, narrow spaces, and adverse angular degrees. One case of short circuit was reported. Emergency stop was necessary in three cases due to uncontrolled movement into the abdominal cavity. Eight of nine surgeons prefer robotic to human assistance, mostly because of a steady image and self-control. The SoloAssist® robot is a reliable system for laparoscopic procedures. Emergency shutdown was necessary in only three cases. Some minor weak spots could have been identified. Most surgeons prefer robotic assistance to human assistance. We feel that the SoloAssist® makes standard laparoscopic surgery more comfortable and further development is desirable, but it cannot fully replace a human assistant.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25419950

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Technol Int        ISSN: 1090-3941


  6 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

2.  A robotic flexible endoscope with shared autonomy: a study of mockup cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Chengzhi Song; Xin Ma; Xianfeng Xia; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; Charing Ching Ning Chong; Zheng Li
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A learning robot for cognitive camera control in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Martin Wagner; Andreas Bihlmaier; F Mathis-Ullrich; B P Müller-Stich; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Patrick Mietkowski; Paul Maria Scheikl; Sebastian Bodenstedt; Anja Schiepe-Tiska; Josephin Vetter; Felix Nickel; S Speidel; H Wörn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Ergonomics in handheld and robot-assisted camera control: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Paul J M Wijsman; Lennert Molenaar; Cas D P Van't Hullenaar; Bas S T van Vugt; Wim A Bleeker; Werner A Draaisma; Ivo A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robotic Endoscope Control Via Autonomous Instrument Tracking.

Authors:  Caspar Gruijthuijsen; Luis C Garcia-Peraza-Herrera; Gianni Borghesan; Dominiek Reynaerts; Jan Deprest; Sebastien Ourselin; Tom Vercauteren; Emmanuel Vander Poorten
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2022-04-11

6.  The feasibility of single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a solo approach: a comparative study.

Authors:  Say-June Kim; Byung-Jo Choi; Wonjun Jeong; Sang Chul Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg Treat Res       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 1.859

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.