Literature DB >> 30334160

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

Yasushi Ohmura1,2, Hiromitsu Suzuki3, Kazutoshi Kotani4, Atsushi Teramoto5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.
RESULTS: The number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotic scope holder; Soloassist

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30334160     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6506-4

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


  34 in total

1.  Decline in popularity of general surgery as a career choice in North America: review of postgraduate residency training selection in Canada, 1996-2001.

Authors:  Jeff G Marschall; Ahmer A Karimuddin
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-02-27       Impact factor: 3.352

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

Authors:  Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Toni Franz; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Do Minh; Anja Dietel; James Hicks; Martin Nicolaus; Abdulrahman Al-Aown; Evangelos Liatsikos
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 3.  Robotics in surgery.

Authors:  Simon Bann; Mansoor Khan; Juan Hernandez; Yaron Munz; Krishna Moorthy; Vivek Datta; Timothy Rockall; Ara Darzi
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Experimental assessment of a new mechanical endoscopic solosurgery system: Endofreeze.

Authors:  A Arezzo; M O Schurr; A Braun; G F Buess
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-03-11       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder.

Authors:  Stephen Merola; Philip Weber; Annette Wasielewski; Garth H Ballantyne
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 1.719

6.  Surgical Outcomes After Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

Authors:  Seung Yoon Yang; Kun Ho Roh; You-Na Kim; Minah Cho; Seung Hyun Lim; Taeil Son; Woo Jin Hyung; Hyoung-Il Kim
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Han-Xin Zhou; Yue-Hua Guo; Xiao-Fang Yu; Shi-Yun Bao; Jia-Lin Liu; Yue Zhang; Yong-Gong Ren
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int       Date:  2006-02

9.  Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group.

Authors:  David G Jayne; Pierre J Guillou; Helen Thorpe; Philip Quirke; Joanne Copeland; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Feasibility and Usefulness of a Joystick-Guided Robotic Scope Holder (Soloassist) in Laparoscopic Surgery.

Authors:  Yasushi Ohmura; Mari Nakagawa; Hiromitsu Suzuki; Kazutoshi Kotani; Atsushi Teramoto
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2018-01-31
View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.