Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

Application and advantages of a joystick-controlled robotic scope holder in transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach: a comparative study

Transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy has gained popularity due to its scarless nature, but the use of a handheld endoscope can lead to an unstable visual field. Soloassist II, a robotic scope holder, enables precise control using a joystick, ensuring stable vision. This study aims to evaluate the application and the advantages of Soloassist II in transoral thyroidectomy. Patients who underwent transoral thyroidectomy with Soloassist II or human assistance between June 2019 and May 2021 were reviewed. Patient demographics and surgical outcomes were compared. The ergonomic stress of the assistant in both groups was also measured. A total of 100 consecutive patients were included: 32 were assisted by Soloassist II and 68 by humans. The Soloassist II group demonstrated significantly shorter operation times (median [IQR]) (165 [149,179] vs. 181 [165,204] min, P = 0.004) in unilateral lobectomy and less blood loss (median [IQR]) (2 [2,2] vs. 2 [2,3] ml, P = 0.002) than the human-assisted group. Postoperative course and complication rates were similar. The musculoskeletal pain of the assistant was significantly higher and involved more areas in the human-assisted group. The utilization of Soloassist II in transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy is easy to set up and leads to shorter operation times, reduced blood loss, and decreased musculoskeletal pain compared to human handheld endoscope. These findings support the potential of Soloassist II in improving surgical outcomes and minimizing physical strain during transoral thyroidectomy.

Evaluation of the Efficiency of a Joystick-Guided Robotic Scope Holder Compared to That of Human Scopists: A Prospective Trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare motions of the laparoscope tip during a laparoscopic task in a training box using a recent joystick-guided robotic scope holder to those manipulated by human scopists. We hypothesized that laparoscopic manipulation could be positively affected by robotic scope holders due to the elimination of unintentional movement.

METHODS

Twelve surgeons participated as operators, and eight medical doctors participated in this study. Among the human scopists, five were trained surgeons and three were novices who had no experience with laparoscopic surgery. A validated laparoscopic task was used to evaluate the path length of the laparoscope tip using an optical position tracker and operative time. The operators performed the designated camera task under three different laparoscopic manipulations: using a joystick-guided robotic scope holder, expert human scopists, and novice scopists.

RESULTS

The median path lengths (cm) of the laparoscopic tip were 94.0, 110.0, and 122.2 in the robotic scope holder, expert, and novice groups, respectively. The path lengths in the robotic scope holder group were significantly shorter than those in the other groups (P < .01). The median operative times (seconds) were 136.6, 66.4, and 62.3 in the robotic scope holder, expert, and novice groups, respectively. The operative time of the robotic scope holder group was significantly longer than that of the other groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A robotic scope holder can provide shorter camera movement owing to the stable holding and intentional scope manipulation by the operator, although it requires a longer operative time than a human assistant.

Comparison of robotic camera holders with human assistants in endoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic camera holders can overcome the shortcomings of human assistants, such as shaking and accidental rotation in endoscopic surgery. Robotic camera holder is not affected by the operation time and surgical position and reduces the size of the team. However, there is still controversy over the practicality of robotic camera holders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The last database search was performed on 30 April 2022. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies (n = 698, 354 controls and 344 robotic camera holders) were included in our analysis. The results showed that the robotic camera holder significantly outperformed human assistants on the frequency of lens cleaning (SMD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.05) and inappropriate movements (MD, -3.57; 95% CI, -4.93 to -2.21). There was no difference in total operation time (MD, 6.99; 95% CI, -2.47 to 16.72), preparation time (MD, 2.43; 95% CI, -0.32 to 5.18) or blood loss (MD, 34.47; 95% CI, -8.05 to 76.98) between the robotic camera holder and human assistant. However, the robotic camera holder was significantly slower in the core operation (MD, 5.06; 95% CI, 1.18 to 8.94), and surgeons had mixed reviews of robotic systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic camera holder provided the surgeon with a highly stable environment. Although the robotic camera holder will not increase the total time, it still needs to improve the core operation time. There is much room for improvement in robotic camera holders. Further development of devices with intuitive control systems and a greater range of motion will be required to accommodate more complex surgeries.

User interfaces for actuated scope maneuvering in surgical systems: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A variety of human computer interfaces are used by robotic surgical systems to control and actuate camera scopes during minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this review is to examine the different user interfaces used in both commercial systems and research prototypes.

METHODS

A comprehensive scoping review of scientific literature was conducted using PubMed and IEEE Xplore databases to identify user interfaces used in commercial products and research prototypes of robotic surgical systems and robotic scope holders. Papers related to actuated scopes with human-computer interfaces were included. Several aspects of user interfaces for scope manipulation in commercial and research systems were reviewed.

RESULTS

Scope assistance was classified into robotic surgical systems (for multiple port, single port, and natural orifice) and robotic scope holders (for rigid, articulated, and flexible endoscopes). Benefits and drawbacks of control by different user interfaces such as foot, hand, voice, head, eye, and tool tracking were outlined. In the review, it was observed that hand control, with its familiarity and intuitiveness, is the most used interface in commercially available systems. Control by foot, head tracking, and tool tracking are increasingly used to address limitations, such as interruptions to surgical workflow, caused by using a hand interface.

CONCLUSION

Integrating a combination of different user interfaces for scope manipulation may provide maximum benefit for the surgeons. However, smooth transition between interfaces might pose a challenge while combining controls.

Robots in Healthcare: a Scoping Review

Purpose of Review

Robots are increasingly being adopted in healthcare to carry out various tasks that enhance patient care. This scoping review aims to establish the types of robots being used in healthcare and identify where they are deployed.

Recent Findings

Technological advancements have enabled robots to conduct increasingly varied and complex roles in healthcare. For instance, precision tasks such as improving dexterity following stroke or assisting with percutaneous coronary intervention.

Summary

This review found that robots have played 10 main roles across a variety of clinical environments. The two predominant roles were surgical and rehabilitation and mobility. Although robots were mainly studied in the surgical theatre and rehabilitation unit, other settings ranged from the hospital ward to inpatient pharmacy. Healthcare needs are constantly evolving, as demonstrated by COVID-19, and robots may assist in adapting to these changes. The future will involve increased telepresence and infrastructure systems will have to improve to allow for this.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43154-022-00095-4.

Comparative early results of a robotics-assisted endoscope holder in single port thoracoscopic surgery in the era of COVID-19

Background

Innovations in surgical instruments have made single-port surgery more widely accepted and lead to a reduced demand for surgical assistants. As COVID-19 has ravaged the world, maintaining minimum medical staffing requirements and proper social distancing have become major topics of interest. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of applying the unisurgeon approach in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery aided by a robotic camera holder.

Methods

Operative time, blood loss, setup time, postoperative hospital stays, and the number of participating surgeons in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lung resections were gathered for investigation after the introduction of the ENDOFIX^exo robotic endoscope holder system. In this cohort, we collected 213 patients who underwent single port video thoracoscope surgery, including 57 patients underwent robotic endoscope arm assisted surgery and case-matched 52 patients in the robotic arm–assisted group with patients in the human-assisted group through propensity score–matched analysis.

Results

In wedge resection, a single surgeon was able to completely operate on all lobes of target lesions. However, for anatomical resections, namely segmentectomy, the success rate was 95%, and for lobectomy, the success rate was only 64%. No significant differences between setup times, blood loss, or operative times between the two groups were observed.

Conclusions

When an experienced uniport surgeon is assisted by a robotic endoscope holder, wedge resection is the most suitable procedure to be performed through unisurgeon single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery without increasing setup time, operative time, or short-term complications. Verification of the technique’s applicability for use in anatomic resections requires further investigation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09054-8.

Efficiency in image-guided robotic and conventional camera steering: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic camera steering systems have been developed to facilitate endoscopic surgery. In this study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare conventional human camera control with the AutoLap™ robotic camera holder in terms of efficiency and user experience when performing routine laparoscopic procedures. Novelty of this system relates to the steering method, which is image based.

METHODS

Patients undergoing an elective laparoscopic hemicolectomy, sigmoid resection, fundoplication and cholecystectomy between September 2016 and January 2018 were included. Stratified block randomization was used for group allocation. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of robotic and human camera control, measured with surgical team size and total operating time. Secondary outcome parameters were number of cleaning moments of the laparoscope and the post-study system usability questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were randomized to have robotic (50) versus human (50) camera control. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. In the robotic group, 49/50 (98%) of procedures were carried out without human camera control, reducing the surgical team size from four to three individuals. The median total operative time (60.0 versus 53.0 min, robotic vs. control) was not significantly different, p = 0.122. The questionnaire showed a positive user satisfaction and easy control of the robotic camera holder.

CONCLUSION

Image-based robotic camera control can reduce surgical team size and does not result in significant difference in operative time compared to human camera control. Moreover, robotic image-guided camera control was associated with positive user experience.

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®): retrospective comparative study with human assistant

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

Among 182 inguinal hernia patients treated by laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair, 82 cases were completed with a human scope assistant, while Soloassist was used in 100 cases. We retrospectively compared perioperative results of Soloassist group and human scope assistant group. In 139 unilateral cases, we also used logistic regression of perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

RESULTS

All operations with Soloassist were carried out laparoscopically as solo-surgery without any system-specific complications. A statistically significant decrease in operation time was observed in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group (93.6 vs 85.9 min, p = 0.05). There was no prolongation of preoperative time or difference in the amount of intraoperative blood loss. Operation time was also significantly shorter in Soloassist group, when analyzing unilateral cases (85.5 vs 76.3 min, p = 0.02) and bilateral cases (126.9 vs 111.8 min, p = 0.01), independently. However, after propensity score matching in unilateral cases, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (83.8 vs 77.2 min, p = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of Soloassist in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was demonstrated with no adverse device-related events. All surgeries could be completed as solo-surgery, while no additional time for preoperative setting was required. The mean operation time tends to be shorter in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group. Soloassist could be an effective device in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.