Literature DB >> 28868499

The future of robotics.

Hannah Warren1, Prokar Dasgupta2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28868499      PMCID: PMC5577324          DOI: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.5.297

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Investig Clin Urol        ISSN: 2466-0493


× No keyword cloud information.
In the 1980s minimally invasive surgical techniques were booming across many disciplines, cutting postoperative recovery time by reducing postoperative pain, hospital length of stay and need for blood transfusion. Expansion, however, was limited by the complexity of surgery that could be achieved with the technical limitations that laparoscopic instruments present. Robotic technology, initially developed by defense organisations for remote operating, offers solutions to these limitations including 3-dimensional (3D) view of the operating field, filtering of physiological tremor, and articulate arms allowing greater precision and control. The opportunity to combine robotic technology with laparoscopic surgery was seized by commercial platforms, and allows increasingly complex procedures to be achieved with minimally invasive techniques. In 1999, Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA, USA) launched the da Vinci robot, a ‘master-slave’ device with a console controlled by the surgeon and robotic arms installed on a patient bedside cart. In 2003, Intuitive Surgical acquired its main competitor Computer Motion and has since dominated the market. Four generations of da Vinci robot later, and over 4,000 units sold worldwide, the da Vinci robot is the focus of >10,000 peer-reviewed publications examining the use of robotics in surgery. Urologists have been at the forefront in harnessing the power of robotic technology to advance their surgical field. Robotic assisted prostatectomy, cystectomy, pyeloplasty, nephrectomy, and partial nephrectomy are all increasingly common techniques. More recently, a robotic device for endourological procedures has been trialed in humans [1]. Widespread introduction of surgical robots in urology occurred from the year 2000 onwards in the belief that they provided benefit to surgical outcomes over existing techniques. Concerns have been raised over the lack of high-level evidence to support the use of surgical robotic systems, considering the substantial additional costs they introduce [2]. Randomized controlled trial evidence comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy over an open retropubic approach failed to show any difference between urogenital or early oncological outcomes at 6, 12, or 24 weeks [3]. However the study did demonstrate a shorter operating time, reduced length of stay and estimated total blood loss [3]. While there are clear benefits of a robotic approach over open surgery in terms of short-term perioperative morbidity, the significant extra costs introduced by the robot are still questioned, and restrict expansion.

COST AND COMPETITION

The high cost associated with robotic surgery was partly explained by Intuitive Surgical being the sole producer of commercial robotic surgical systems. In 2019 a number of their intellectual property patents are due to expire. Competing master-slave system Telelap Alf-X by TransEnterix has now entered the market with sales made in Italy and Japan, and has an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration pending. Several other systems are also expected to be marketed within the next 5 years [4]. Increased competition, reusable instruments, and a resulting reduction in cost will lead to a stronger economic argument for robotic-assisted surgery, and expansion to more centers and regions is likely.

OPEN CONSOLES

The closed console of da Vinci envelops the surgeon's face and compromises his or her situational awareness within the operating theatre. Telelap Alf-X and the newer Revo-I, currently undergoing trials in Korea [5], promise open surgeon consoles with the potential to improve operating ergonomics. The Telelap Alf-X monitor requires the surgeon to wear 3D glasses and incorporates eye-tracking, whereas Revo-I boasts a 3D high definition monitor [4].

HAPTIC FEEDBACK

A major limitation of robotic surgical systems was the lack of haptic feedback compared to traditional laparoscopic technique. Telelap Alf-X is the first commercial robotic platform to incorporate haptic feedback technology. Via counter-movement of the console handles, the surgeon receives tactile information regarding force and its direction applied at the surgical site. Haptic feedback while operating increases surgical awareness and improves security.

SINGLE PORT SURGERY

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) robotic systems are emerging technologies that allow multiple instruments and a camera to be inserted via a single incision. These robots further advance minimally invasive techniques, reducing surgical trauma and when an umbilical incision is used, approach scar-free operating. While experimental trials will be required to establish the benefit of LESS, they are expected to widen the gap between traditional and robotic surgical techniques. Both master-slave and bedside devices are being developed with Intuitive Surgical launching the SP 1098 single port platform for da Vinci, and competing systems from Titan Medical and TransEnterix [4].

BEYOND SURGICAL DEVICES

Robotics in medicine is not limited to surgical devices. One of the greatest healthcare challenges of the developed world is combating preventable disease caused by poor lifestyle choices. Researchers at the University of Southern California are developing socially assistive robots that interact with individuals to coach and motivate them towards a health or wellbeing goal [6]. With a call from the National Institutes of Health for research proposals for socially assistive robots, this field has potential to change management of difficult social issues such as weight loss and smoking cessation. If such goals are realized, socially assistive robots could be utilized to optimize perioperative comorbidities and thus improve surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of competing robotic surgical systems is expected to enter the market in the next 5 years. The new technology offered has the potential to improve surgical ergonomics. With the market dominated by the high-performing but expensive generations of the da Vinci for almost 20 years, newer, economic machines may make robotic surgery accessible to wider populations.
  6 in total

1.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Gabriel I Barbash; Sherry A Glied
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Socially Assistive Robots Help Patients Make Behavioral Changes.

Authors:  Jennifer Abbasi
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Robot-assisted Fallopian tube transection and anastomosis using the new REVO-I robotic surgical system: feasibility in a chronic porcine model.

Authors:  Ali Abdel Raheem; Irela Soto Troya; Dae Keun Kim; Se Hoon Kim; Park Dong Won; Park Sung Joon; Gim Soo Hyun; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study.

Authors:  John W Yaxley; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Suzanne K Chambers; Stefano Occhipinti; Hema Samaratunga; Leah Zajdlewicz; Nigel Dunglison; Rob Carter; Scott Williams; Diane J Payton; Joanna Perry-Keene; Martin F Lavin; Robert A Gardiner
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A new robot for flexible ureteroscopy: development and early clinical results (IDEAL stage 1-2b).

Authors:  Remzi Saglam; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu; Zafer Tokatlı; Turhan Caşkurlu; Kemal Sarica; Ali İhsan Taşçi; Bülent Erkurt; Evren Süer; Ahmet Sinan Kabakci; Glenn Preminger; Olivier Traxer; Jens J Rassweiler
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  Future of robotic surgery in urology.

Authors:  Jens J Rassweiler; Riccardo Autorino; Jan Klein; Alex Mottrie; Ali Serdar Goezen; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Koon H Rha; Marc Schurr; Jihad Kaouk; Vipul Patel; Prokar Dasgupta; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 5.588

  6 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Urological technology: where will we be in 20 years' time?

Authors:  Darryl Ethan Bernstein; Brett Sydney Bernstein
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2018-06-17

2.  Robotic Cardiac Surgery: The Future Gold Standard or An Unnecessary Extravagance?

Authors:  Amer Harky; Syed Mohammad Asim Hussain
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-08-27

Review 3.  Surgical robotic systems: What we have now? A urological perspective.

Authors:  Ahmad Almujalhem; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2020-08-19

4.  Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Middle East: A report on the perioperative outcomes from a tertiary care centre in Lebanon.

Authors:  Muhieddine Labban; Muhammad Bulbul; Wassim Wazzan; Raja Khauli; Albert El Hajj
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2020-08-26

5.  Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications.

Authors:  Maher Ghanem; Samuel Shaheen; John Blebea; Faiz Tuma; Majd Zayout; Nico Conti; Ghaith Qudah; Mohamed K Kamel
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-04-11

6.  Efficacy and Safety of Robotic Procedures Performed Using the da Vinci Robotic Surgical System at a Single Institute in Korea: Experience with 10000 Cases.

Authors:  Dong Hoon Koh; Won Sik Jang; Jae Won Park; Won Sik Ham; Woong Kyu Han; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.759

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.