Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: our experience on 29 patients

被引:11
作者
Caratozzolo, E [1 ]
Recordare, A [1 ]
Massani, M [1 ]
Bonariol, L [1 ]
Jelmoni, A [1 ]
Antoniutti, M [1 ]
Bassi, N [1 ]
机构
[1] Reg Hosp Ca Foncello Piazza Osped, Reg Reference Ctr Hepato Biliary Pancreat Surg, Unit Surg 4, I-31100 Treviso, Italy
来源
JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SURGERY | 2005年 / 12卷 / 02期
关键词
telerobotic surgery; computer-assisted cholecystectomy; laparoscopic cholecystectomy;
D O I
10.1007/s00534-004-0932-5
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Purpose. The role of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is still debated and not clearly defined. Methods. The authors report their initial experience with CAS, comparing 29 patients submitted to cholecystectomy, using a Zeus remote-controlled robot and an Aesop remote voice-activated endoscope robot, with 29 patients submitted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The surgical field and the arms of the robot were under the direct and real-time control of the surgeon, who stayed at the workstation and maneuvered the Zeus, using joysticks. The workstation was in the same room as the patient. Results. Twenty-nine patients underwent telerobotic-assisted cholecystectomy (TLAC); 1 procedure was converted to standard LC and 1 to open cholecystectomy. The conversions were due to choledocholithiasis and cholecystitis. During TLAC, the mean operating time and transition time (from the induction of anesthesia to incision of the skin) were, respectively, 75 min (range, 60-170 min) and 45 min (range, 25-60 min). We did not observe any complications related to TLAC. The limitations of TLAC were the lack of tactile feedback, the increase in surgical time, and the expensive cost of the procedure to reach the same result as that of LC. Conclusions. After this initial experience, we believe that TLAC could be considered only for training in CAS, but that it is without advantages in terms of its higher cost compared with LC.
引用
收藏
页码:163 / 166
页数:4
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]
Archer SB, 2001, ANN SURG, V234, P549, DOI 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00014
[2]
BASSI N, 1997, C SOC IT CHIR ED LUI
[3]
Advantages of using robotic Da Vinci® system for unilateral adrenalectomy:: early results [J].
Brunaud, L ;
Bresler, L ;
Ayav, A ;
Tretou, S ;
Cormier, L ;
Klein, M ;
Boissel, P .
ANNALES DE CHIRURGIE, 2003, 128 (08) :530-535
[4]
Cadière GB, 2001, WORLD J SURG, V25, P1467
[5]
Usefulness of both operative cholangiography and conversion to decrease major bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].
Caratozzolo, E ;
Massani, M ;
Recordare, A ;
Bonariol, L ;
Antoniutti, M ;
Jelmoni, A ;
Bassi, N .
JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SURGERY, 2004, 11 (03) :171-175
[6]
MECHANISMS OF MAJOR BILIARY INJURY DURING LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY [J].
DAVIDOFF, AM ;
PAPPAS, TN ;
MURRAY, EA ;
HILLEREN, DJ ;
JOHNSON, RD ;
BAKER, ME ;
NEWMAN, GE ;
COTTON, PB ;
MEYERS, WC .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1992, 215 (03) :196-202
[7]
Donias HW, 2002, AM SURGEON, V68, P177
[8]
Robotics in general surgery - Personal experience in a large community hospital [J].
Giulianotti, PC ;
Coratti, A ;
Angelini, M ;
Sbrana, F ;
Cecconi, S ;
Balestracci, T ;
Caravaglios, G .
ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2003, 138 (07) :777-784
[9]
Robots in laparoscopic surgery [J].
Horgan, S ;
Vanuno, D .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES-PART A, 2001, 11 (06) :415-419
[10]
Robotic versus telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: duration of surgery and outcomes [J].
Hourmont, K ;
Chung, WS ;
Pereira, S ;
Wasielewski, A ;
Davies, R ;
Ballantyne, GH .
SURGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2003, 83 (06) :1445-+