Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report
- PMID: 7582231
Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report
Abstract
Background: The feasibility and applicability of using surgeon-controlled robotic arms as a substitute for surgical assistants during urologic laparoscopic surgery was assessed.
Study design: Seventeen laparoscopic procedures (nephrectomy, n = 4; retroperitoneal lymph node sampling, n = 2; varix ligation, n = 2; pyeloplasty, n = 3; Burch bladder suspension, n = 2; pelvic lymph node dissection, n = 1; orchiopexy, n = 1; ureterolysis, n = 1; and nephropexy, n = 1) were performed by a single laparoscopic surgeon assisted by one or two robotic arms directly controlled by the operating surgeon. One robotic arm controlled the laparoscope and was maneuvered by a foot pedal. The second robotic arm served as a retractor and was manipulated by a hand control. Assessment of robotic positioning, laparoscopic instrument port placement, time for setup and breakdown of the operative field, operative time, outcome, and operative complications were made for each procedure and compared with historical human-assisted laparoscopic procedures.
Results: Standard laparoscopic port placement was adequate for use of the robotic arms. All procedures were successfully completed with three minor surgical complications not related to the use of the robotic arm. Robotic arm positioning on the operating room table differed for each type of procedure, yet placement of the robotic arm controlling the laparoscope on the surgeon's side provided optimal surgical views. In three cases, intraoperative bleeding required human assistance for camera control. There was no increase in operating time when the robotic arms were used. There was no difference between the setup and breakdown time for this series of complete robot-assisted procedures when compared with either a nonrobot-assisted series (p > 0.05) or another robotic series completed prior to initiation of this study when no focus was made on setup and breakdown times and in which the robotic arm and human surgical assistant were compared (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: We found that simultaneous use of remote controlled robotic arms as surgical assistants is feasible in genitourinary laparoscopic surgery. The potential long-term cost effectiveness of using robotic surgical assistants in laparoscopic surgery highlights the economic impact of this research and warrants further investigation.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control.J Urol. 1995 Dec;154(6):2134-6. J Urol. 1995. PMID: 7500476 Clinical Trial.
-
Use of a robotic system as surgical first assistant in advanced laparoscopic surgery.J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Sep;199(3):368-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.05.257. J Am Coll Surg. 2004. PMID: 15325605
-
Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improved efficiency and decreased resource utilization in complex minimally invasive surgical procedures.Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996;29:471-81. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996. PMID: 10172847
-
Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results.Surg Endosc. 2002 Oct;16(10):1389-402. doi: 10.1007/s00464-001-8283-7. Epub 2002 Jul 29. Surg Endosc. 2002. PMID: 12140630 Review.
-
Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment.Pediatrics. 2009 Dec;124(6):1642-9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3822. Epub 2009 Nov 16. Pediatrics. 2009. PMID: 19917586 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance.JSLS. 2005 Jul-Sep;9(3):258-61. JSLS. 2005. PMID: 16121867 Free PMC article.
-
Development of a compact laparoscope manipulator (P-arm).Surg Endosc. 2009 Nov;23(11):2596-604. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0460-0. Epub 2009 Apr 9. Surg Endosc. 2009. PMID: 19357921
-
Robotic Urologic Surgery in Infants: Results and Complications.Front Pediatr. 2019 May 14;7:187. doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00187. eCollection 2019. Front Pediatr. 2019. PMID: 31139606 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Lowering gastrointestinal leak rates: a comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass.J Robot Surg. 2008 Sep;2(3):159-63. doi: 10.1007/s11701-008-0104-8. Epub 2008 Sep 2. J Robot Surg. 2008. PMID: 27628253
-
Web-connected surgery: using the internet for teaching and proctoring of live robotic surgeries.J Robot Surg. 2012 Mar;6(1):47-52. doi: 10.1007/s11701-011-0304-5. Epub 2011 Aug 25. J Robot Surg. 2012. PMID: 27637979