Robotic Camera Holder as Good as Expert Camera Holder: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Comparison of FreeHand® robot-assisted with human-assisted laparoscopic fundoplication

Objective: To compare the safety, operative time and feasibilty of FreeHand^® robot (FreeHand Ltd, Guildford, United Kingdom) with manual camera control approach for Laparoscopic Fundoplication.Material and methods: A case control study was performed for patients undergoing laparoscopic fundoplication. Primary outcome was operative time; secondary outcomes included length of stay, post-operative morbidity, symptoms at first follow-up and total post-operative out-patient visits.Results: Forty-four patients underwent laparoscopic fundoplication between January 2014 and June 2016. Twenty-six (59%) underwent conventional human-assisted fundoplication while 18 (41%) had FreeHand^® robot assisted procedures. Mean operative time for conventional laparoscopic fundoplication was 165 min compared with 129 min in the robot-assisted group, saving 36 min (p < .001).The median length of stay was 1.5 days in the robot-assisted as compared to two days in the conventional group. Sixteen percent of robot-assisted as opposed to 30% of conventional group patients experienced complications. There was no 30-day mortality. Two patients required more than one post-operative clinic visit in robot-assisted against six in conventional group.Conclusion: Robot-assisted fundoplication is safe, feasible and reduces operative time. Furthermore, this negates need of assistant. Mean operative time for robot-assisted fundoplication was 36 min less than for conventional fundoplication. Advantages also include fewer adverse events, shorter length of stay and less post-operative clinic visits.

Evaluation of a robot-assisted video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery programme

At present, there is increasing interest in surgical procedures using a robot-assisted device. The aim of this study was to investigate whether robot-assisted video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) was more effective than conventional VATS. A total of 64 VATS lobectomies in Papworth Hospital (Cambridge, UK) were included in the study. In 34 cases the lobectomies were performed using conventional VATS (CV group), while in the remaining 30 cases the lobectomies were performed using robot-assisted VATS (Robotic group). In the robot-assisted VATS, FreeHand^®, a thoracoscopic camera controller produced by Freehand 2010 Ltd. (Eastleigh, UK), was used. The duration of the thoracoscopic surgery in the Robotic group was 145.50±10.43 min, whereas in the CV group the duration was 162.79±9.40 min. The surgery duration in the Robotic group was 10.62% shorter than that in the CV group (P<0.05). The rates of bleeding, pulmonary infection, arrhythmia and prolonged air leak (≥5 days) in the Robotic group were 0, 3.33, 26.67 and 13.33%, respectively, while the corresponding rates in the CV group were 2.94, 5.88, 20.59 and 17.65%, respectively. No significant differences were identified in the postoperative complication rates between the two groups (P≥0.05). There was no perioperative mortality in the study. Compared with conventional VATS, FreeHand-assisted VATS provides a similar rate of postoperative complications and a reduced surgery duration, and may be beneficial for the recovery of the patients following VATS.