The voice-controlled robotic assist scope holder AESOP for the endoscopic approach to the sella.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility of using a voice-controlled robot Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning (AESOP) for holding and maneuvering the endoscope in the trans-sphenoidal approach to the pituitary. DESIGN To compare the manual approach to the voice-activated robotic scope holder in maneuvering the endoscope and resecting pituitary lesions using a two-handed technique. SETTING Robotic laboratory at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport. CADAVERS Ten fresh cadaver heads. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES To determine the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of a single neurosurgeon maneuvering the endoscope, visualizing key anatomical features in the sphenoid, and resecting skull base lesions after the approach by an otolaryngologist. RESULTS The learning curve for utilization of the voice-controlled robotic arm was short. The compact cart with the AESOP took up little space and allowed the standard setup for this procedure. The elimination of the need for manual stabilization of the endoscope permitted the use of both hands for the actual procedure. The elimination of the tremor inherent with holding the endoscope manually allowed the scope to be placed closer to the target organ with fewer collisions. The most significant advantage was the ability of AESOP to save three anatomical positions, which could be returned to with a single voice command. CONCLUSIONS Recently, the endoscopic-endonasal approach to the sella has gained popularity. The voice-activated robotic scope holder is safe and has several advantages over current scope holders. Its utility may reduce operating time and eliminate the need for a second surgeon to hold the endoscope.

[1]  D. Locatelli,et al.  Different surgical approaches to the sellar region: focusing on the "two nostrils four hands technique". , 2006, Rhinology.

[2]  J Rachinger,et al.  An automated robotic approach with redundant navigation for minimal invasive extended transsphenoidal skull base surgery. , 2005, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[3]  D. Terris,et al.  Surgical robotics in otolaryngology: expanding the technology envelope , 2004, Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery.

[4]  H. Jho,et al.  Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Part 2 - The Cavernous Sinus , 2004, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[5]  H. Jho,et al.  Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Part 3 - The Clivus and Posterior Fossa , 2004, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[6]  H. Jho,et al.  Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Part 1 - The Midline Anterior Fossa Skull Base , 2004, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[7]  R. Satava.  Robotic surgery: from past to future--a personal journey. , 2003, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[8]  N. Kambham,et al.  Surgical Robotic Applications in Otolaryngology , 2003, The Laryngoscope.

[9]  F. Esposito,et al.  Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Approach: Outcome Analysis of 100 Consecutive Procedures , 2002, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[10]  Eric A Mair,et al.  A ‘Third Hand’ for Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery , 2002, The Laryngoscope.

[11]  C. Hollands,et al.  Applications of Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Patients , 2002, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[12]  R. Satava.  Surgical Robotics: The Early Chronicles: A Personal Historical Perspective , 2002, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[13]  Jho Hd.  Endoscopic endonasal approach to the optic nerve: A technical note , 2001 .

[14]  C. Gandhi,et al.  Historical movements in transsphenoidal surgery. , 2001, Neurosurgical focus.

[15]  H. Jho,et al.  Endoscopic Endonasal Pituitary Surgery: Evolution of Surgical Technique and Equipment in 150 Operations , 2001, Minimally invasive neurosurgery : MIN.

[16]  U. Kappert,et al.  Closed-chest coronary artery surgery on the beating heart with the use of a robotic system. , 2000, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.

[17]  Z. Rappaport,et al.  Endoscopic Transnasal Transsphenoidal Microsurgery Versus the Sublabial Approach for the Treatment of Pituitary Tumors: Endonasal Complications , 1999, The Laryngoscope.

[18]  E. Laws.  Vascular Complications of Transsphenoidal Surgery , 1999, Pituitary.

[19]  D. Andrews,et al.  Endoscopic transseptal transsphenoidal hypophysectomy with three‐dimensional intraoperative localization technology , 1999, The Laryngoscope.

[20]  R. Carrau,et al.  Transnasal‐Transsphenoidal Endoscopic Surgery of the Pituitary Gland , 1996, The Laryngoscope.

[21]  V D Bear,et al.  Functional endoscopic sinus surgery , 1991, The Medical journal of Australia.

[22]  E. Laws,et al.  Transseptal approaches for pituitary surgery , 1990, The Laryngoscope.

[23]  S. Hayati,et al.  A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery , 1988, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[24]  D. Kennedy.  Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Technique. , 1985, Archives of otolaryngology.

[25]  J. Hahn,et al.  Transnasal, transeptal sphenoidal approach to hypophysectomy , 1982, The Laryngoscope.

[26]  J. Hardy.  Transsphenoidal Hypophysectomy. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery.

[27]  Ciric Ivan,et al.  Complications of Transsphenoidal Surgery: Results of a National Survey, Review of the Literature, and Personal Experience. , 1997, Neurosurgery.

[28]  David W. Kennedy,et al.  Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery , 1996 .

[29]  E. Abemayor,et al.  Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery , 1992 .

[30]  B. Davies,et al.  A surgeon robot prostatectomy--a laboratory evaluation. , 1989, Journal of medical engineering & technology.

[31]  W. Collins.  Hypophysectomy: historical and personal perspective. , 1974, Clinical neurosurgery.