Comparing the Operational Related Outcomes of a Robotic Camera Holder and its Human Counterpart in Laparoscopic Ovarian Cystectomy: a Randomized Control Trial

Purpose : Robotic camera holders have provided new prospects for more successful endoscopic surgeries. In this study we aimed to assess the operational subjective and objective outcomes of a newly developed camera holder, RoboLens, in comparison with a human camera holder, during laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. Methods : The study was performed as a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Forty patients with single ovarian cyst were randomized to laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy with robotic (RoboLens) or human camera holder. Results : Results indicated that the surgeons felt less fatigue (P=0.047) and surgeries concluded sooner (P=0.001) in robotic assisted groups. Also, the image quality during operation with robotic camera holder was either superior or equal to what obtained with human assistant. However, mastery of the difficult situations, which were defined after the commencement of study, was significantly poorer in robotic group (P=0.001). Conclusion : It was concluded that RoboLens, as a low cost robotic camera holder, is a safe, time and energy saving system which helps to obtain an improved vision from the surgery site.

[1]  Robert Stone,et al.  Comparison of Task Performance of the Camera-Holder Robots EndoAssist and Aesop , 2003, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[2]  R. Rege,et al.  Laparoscopic skills training. , 2001, American journal of surgery.

[3]  Li-Ming Su,et al.  Comparison of surgical performance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy of two robotic camera holders, EndoAssist and AESOP: a pilot study. , 2006, Urology.

[4]  K Radermacher,et al.  An automatic camera-holding system for gynecologic laparoscopy. , 2001, The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

[5]  Bruno Dehez,et al.  Design and preliminary in vivo validation of a robotic laparoscope holder for minimally invasive surgery , 2009, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[6]  A. G. Fleischer,et al.  The effect of a moving background on aimed hand movements. , 1991, Ergonomics.

[7]  H. Stassen,et al.  Observation in laparoscopic surgery: overview of impeding effects and supporting aids. , 1999, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[8]  Paul Breedveld,et al.  Camera and Instrument Holders and Their Clinical Value in Minimally Invasive Surgery , 2004, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[9]  L. Mettler,et al.  Robotic assisted surgery in gynecology: current insights and future perspectives. , 2011, Recent patents on biotechnology.

[10]  M O Schurr,et al.  Systems technology in the operating theatre: A prerequisite for the use of advanced devices in surgery , 2000, Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy.

[11]  Garth H Ballantyne,et al.  The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. , 2002, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[12]  Alireza Mirbagheri,et al.  Design and development of an effective low-cost robotic cameraman for laparoscopic surgery: RoboLens , 2011 .

[13]  Bruno Dehez,et al.  Development and first in vivo trial of EvoLap, an active laparoscope positioner. , 2009, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[14]  M S Rogers,et al.  A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. , 1997, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  I. Sakuma,et al.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a newly developed laparoscope manipulator for 10 patients with cholelithiasis , 2005, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.