Robot assistant for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND The role of a robotic assistant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of robotic assistant over a human assistant, others have not, and it is unclear which robotic assistant is best. OBJECTIVES The aims of this review are to compare the safety of robot assistant versus human assistant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to assess whether the robot can substitute for the human assistant. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until May 2008 for identifying the randomised trials using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group search strategy. SELECTION CRITERIA Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing robot assistants versus human assistants in laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. Randomised clinical trials comparing different types of robot assistants were also considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently identified the trials for exclusion and independently extracted the data. We calculated the risk ratio, mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis using RevMan 5. MAIN RESULTS We included five trials (all of high risk of bias) with 453 patients randomised: 159 to the robot-assistant group and 165 to the human assistant group (one trial report of 129 patients was a conference abstract, not reporting on the number of patients in each group). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for morbidity, conversion to open cholecystectomy, total operating time, or hospital stay when fixed-effect or random-effects model were used. The instrument set-up time was significantly lower in the human assistant group. In one trial, about one sixth of the laparoscopic cholecystectomies in which robot assistant was used, required temporary use of a human assistant. It appears that there was little or no requirement for human assistants in the other three published trials. In two of the three trials, which reported surgeons' preference, the surgeons preferred a robot assistant to a human assistant. There was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy when the random-effects model was used. There was no difference in the errors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears safe, there seems to be no significant advantages over human-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We were unable to identify trials comparing one type of robot assistant versus another. Further randomised trials with low bias-risk and random errors are needed.

[1]  O. Mjåland,et al.  [Cholecystectomy in Norway 1990-2002]. , 2004, Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke.

[2]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  Alexander J Sutton,et al.  What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  Pamela Royle,et al.  LITERATURE SEARCHING FOR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS USED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: RAPID VERSUS EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  J. Dankelman,et al.  Time-action analysis of instrument positioners in laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2001, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[7]  J. Heemskerk,et al.  First Results after Introduction of the Four-Armed da Vinci Surgical System in Fully Robotic Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy , 2006, Digestive Surgery.

[8]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  P. Finlay,et al.  Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (Endo Assist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[10]  G. Fullarton,et al.  Prospective audit of the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the west of Scotland. West of Scotland Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Audit Group. , 1994, Gut.

[11]  Georg Werkgartner,et al.  Prospective study comparing standard and robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2006, Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.

[12]  R. Rege,et al.  A nationwide study of conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. , 2004, American journal of surgery.

[13]  D J Newell,et al.  Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. , 1992, International journal of epidemiology.

[14]  O. Mjåland,et al.  Cholecystectomy rates, gallstone prevalence, and handling of bile duct injuries in Scandinavia , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[15]  Michele Tarsilla.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[16]  D L Demets,et al.  Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Robert West,et al.  About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)). , 2011 .

[18]  D. Nio,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparative study , 2004, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[19]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  T. Jørgensen.  Prevalence of gallstones in a Danish population. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[21]  R. Bittner,et al.  The AESOP robot system in laparoscopic surgery: Increased risk or advantage for surgeon and patient? , 2004, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[22]  Han-Xin Zhou,et al.  Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. , 2006, Hepatobiliary & pancreatic diseases international : HBPD INT.

[23]  J. Ahlberg,et al.  Prevalence of gallstone disease in a Swedish population. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[24]  G. Ballantyne,et al.  Robotic versus telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: duration of surgery and outcomes. , 2003, The Surgical clinics of North America.

[25]  E. Kullman,et al.  Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones , 2004, The British journal of surgery.

[26]  R. Rege,et al.  Consequences of delay in surgical treatment of biliary disease. , 2000, American journal of surgery.

[27]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[28]  S D Walter,et al.  A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis , 2001, Statistics in medicine.