Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Mar;23(3):508-12.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0063-1. Epub 2008 Jul 15.

Robotic implantation of gastric electrical stimulation electrodes for gastroparesis

Affiliations

Robotic implantation of gastric electrical stimulation electrodes for gastroparesis

Jon C Gould et al. Surg Endosc. 2009 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a low-morbidity treatment option that may be effective for refractory symptoms in patients with gastroparesis of diabetic or idiopathic etiology. During surgery to initiate GES, two electrodes are tunneled in the gastric antrum in a precise location. If these electrodes pass through the mucosa and into the gastric lumen (determined by endoscopy) they must be repositioned, often multiple times. During this procedure, extensive suturing to anchor the electrodes is necessary once properly placed. Robotic surgical systems may provide surgeons with several technical and ergonomic advantages during this procedure when compared with a standard laparoscopic approach.

Methods: Over a 26-month period, 22 GES systems were implanted. The initial procedures were performed laparoscopically. After the first 15 laparoscopic cases, a technique for robotically implanting leads was developed and employed for the remainder of the series. Demographics, operative time, and endoscopically confirmed electrode mucosal perforations were quantified and compared based on operative approach.

Results: Patients were similar demographically. Total operative time did not differ based on technique (152 +/- 40 min laparoscopic versus 158 +/- 38 min robotic placement; p = 0.6). Mucosal perforations on first attempt at electrode placement occurred more frequently with the laparoscopic than with the robotic technique (15/30 laparoscopic versus 1/14 robotic; p = 0.006). There were no procedure-related complications.

Conclusions: The robotic approach to GES electrode implantation is feasible and safe. Compared with standard laparoscopic techniques, the accurate insertion and anchoring of these leads can be accomplished more efficiently and comfortably using robotic techniques. Whether robotic GES electrode placement will result in significant clinical advantages for patients will require long-term follow-up.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Digestion. 2002;66(4):204-12 - PubMed
    1. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2007 Oct;17(5):438-41 - PubMed
    1. Obes Surg. 2004 Mar;14(3):381-6 - PubMed
    1. Surgery. 1992 Feb;111(2):143-50 - PubMed
    1. Gastroenterology. 2003 Aug;125(2):421-8 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources