Telerobotic Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Initial Clinical Experience With 25 Patients

ObjectiveTo determine the safety and feasibility of performing telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This will serve as a preliminary step toward the integration of computer-rendered three-dimensional preoperative imaging studies of anatomy and pathology onto the patient’s own anatomy during surgery. Summary Background DataComputer-assisted surgery (CAS) increases the surgeon’s dexterity and precision during minimally invasive surgery, especially when using microinstruments. Clinical trials have shown the improved microsurgical precision afforded by CAS in the minimally invasive setting in cardiac and gynecologic surgery. Future applications would allow integration of preoperative data and augmented-reality simulation onto the actual procedure. MethodsBeginning in September 1999, CAS was used to perform cholecystectomies on 25 patients at a single medical center in this nonrandomized, prospective study. The operations were performed by one of two surgeons who had previous laboratory experience using the computer interface. The entire dissection was performed by the surgeon, who remained at a distance from the patient but in the same operating room. The operation was evaluated according to time of dissection, time of assembly/disassembly of robot, complications, immediate postoperative course, and short-term follow-up. ResultsTwenty of the 25 patients had symptomatic cholelithiasis, 1 had a gallbladder polyp, and 4 had acute cholecystitis. Twenty-four of the 25 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were successfully completed by CAS. There was one conversion to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Set-up and takedown of the robotic arms took a median of 18 minutes. The median operative time for dissection and the overall operative time were 25 and 108 minutes, respectively. There were no intraoperative complications. There was one postoperative complication of a suspected pulmonary embolus, which was treated with anticoagulation. All patients were tolerating diet at discharge. ConclusionsLaparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by CAS is safe and feasible, with operative times and patient recovery similar to those of conventional laparoscopy. At present, CAS cholecystectomy offers no obvious advantages to patients, but the potential advantages of CAS lie in its ability to convert the surgical act into digitized data. This digitized format can then interface with other forms of digitized data, such as pre- or intraoperative imaging studies, or be transmitted over a distance. This has the potential to revolutionize the way surgery is performed.

[1]  R. Maciunas,et al.  Interactive image-guided neurosurgery , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  R A Buckingham,et al.  Robots in operating theatres , 1995, BMJ.

[3]  D Glauser,et al.  Neurosurgical robot Minerva: first results and current developments. , 1995, Journal of image guided surgery.

[4]  M S van Leeuwen,et al.  3-D reconstruction of hepatic neoplasms: a preoperative planning procedure. , 1995, Bailliere's clinical gastroenterology.

[5]  E. Fishman,et al.  Automatic liver segmentation technique for three-dimensional visualization of CT data. , 1996, Radiology.

[6]  J. Hunter,et al.  Standardizing laparoscopic procedure time and determining the effect of patient age/gender and presence or absence of surgical residents during operation , 1997, Surgical Endoscopy.

[7]  A. Cuschieri,et al.  Randomised study of influence of two-dimensional versus three-dimensional imaging on performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 1998, The Lancet.

[8]  J. Himpens,et al.  Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 1998, Surgical Endoscopy.

[9]  E. Stephenson,et al.  Robotically assisted microsurgery for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[10]  H Delingette,et al.  Virtual reality applied to hepatic surgery simulation: the next revolution. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[11]  A. García-Ruiz,et al.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical uterine horn anastomosis. , 1998, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  A. García-Ruiz,et al.  Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. , 1999, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[13]  C. Detter,et al.  Early experience with robotic technology for coronary artery surgery. , 1999, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[14]  R. Satava Emerging technologies for surgery in the 21st century. , 1999, Archives of surgery.

[15]  A. Berrebi,et al.  Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting with the aid of robotic assisted instruments. , 1999, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[16]  G. Hirzinger,et al.  Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. , 1999, American journal of surgery.

[17]  G Graschew,et al.  Telemedicine: the new must for surgery. , 1999, Archives of surgery.

[18]  T. Krummel,et al.  Simulation and virtual reality in surgical education: real or unreal? , 1999, Archives of surgery.

[19]  J. Himpens,et al.  [Nissen fundoplication done by remotely controlled robotic technique]. , 1999, Annales de chirurgie.

[20]  G. Buess,et al.  Robotics and systems technology for advanced endoscopic procedures: experiences in general surgery. , 1999, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[21]  M. Mack,et al.  Use of the voice-controlled and computer-assisted surgical system ZEUS for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. , 1999, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[22]  H Reichenspurner,et al.  Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery using three-dimensional video and robotic assistance. , 1999, Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[23]  D A Rogers,et al.  The impact of external feedback on computer-assisted learning for surgical technical skill training. , 2000, American journal of surgery.

[24]  T. Falcone,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[25]  G. Buess,et al.  Robotics and telemanipulation technologies for endoscopic surgery , 2000, Surgical Endoscopy.

[26]  G. Buess,et al.  Robotics and telemanipulation technologies for endoscopic surgery. A review of the ARTEMIS project. Advanced Robotic Telemanipulator for Minimally Invasive Surgery. , 2000, Surgical endoscopy.

[27]  F. Mohr,et al.  Total endoscopic computer enhanced coronary artery bypass grafting. , 2000, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[28]  R S Haluck,et al.  Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21st century. , 2000, Archives of surgery.

[29]  E. Stephenson,et al.  Initial United States clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. , 2000, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.