Literature DB >> 7500476

Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control .

L R Kavoussi1, R G Moore, J B Adams, A W Partin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We investigated the accuracy and use of a robotic surgical arm compared to a human surgical assistant during urological laparoscopic surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11 patients undergoing pelvic laparoscopic procedures that required identical bilateral surgical manipulations was evaluated. On 1 side a robotic surgical arm was used to manipulate the laparoscopic camera, while on the contralateral side the camera was positioned by a human surgical assistant. The side (left versus right) on which the robot was used was alternated with each case. Parameters assessed included operative time, erroneous camera motions, complications and outcome.
RESULTS: All procedures were successfully completed without complications. Laparoscopic camera positioning was significantly steadier with less inadvertent movements when under robotic control (p < 0.0005). Operative times during dissections using the robot or human assistant were not statistically different.
CONCLUSIONS: A robotic device can more effectively manipulate and accurately control the video endoscope than a human assistant during laparoscopic procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7500476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  42 in total

Review 1.  URobotics--Urology Robotics at Johns Hopkins.

Authors:  D Stoianovici
Journal:  Comput Aided Surg       Date:  2001

2.  A new robotic endoscope manipulator. A preliminary trial to evaluate the performance of a voice-operated industrial robot and a human assistant in several simulated and real endoscopic operations.

Authors:  C Vara-Thorbeck; V F Muñoz; R Toscano; J Gomez; J Fernández; M Felices; A Garcia-Cerezo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-06-19       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Robotically driven interventions: a method of using CT fluoroscopy without radiation exposure to the physician.

Authors:  Stephen B Solomon; Alexandru Patriciu; Mark E Bohlman; Louis R Kavoussi; Dan Stoianovici
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Robotics in pediatric surgery: perspectives for imaging.

Authors:  Adrien J Kant; Michael D Klein; Scott E Langenburg
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2004-02-18

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

Authors:  Sonja Gillen; Benedikt Pletzer; Arthur Heiligensetzer; Petra Wolf; Jörg Kleeff; Hubertus Feussner; Alois Fürst
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A robotic wide-angle view endoscope using wedge prisms.

Authors:  E Kobayashi; I Sakuma; K Konishi; M Hashizume; T Dohi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Telemedicine and surgical robotics: urologic applications.

Authors:  B R Lee; J A Cadeddu; D Stoianovici; L R Kavoussi
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  1999

Review 8.  Robotic technology in urology.

Authors:  D Murphy; B Challacombe; M S Khan; P Dasgupta
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 9.  [Robots in urology-an analysis of current and future devices].

Authors:  J J Rassweiler; A S Goezen; M C Rassweiler-Seyfried; E Liatsikos; T Bach; J-U Stolzenburg; J Klein
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.