Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 2206–2216 | Cite as

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

  • Yasushi OhmuraEmail author
  • Hiromitsu Suzuki
  • Kazutoshi Kotani
  • Atsushi Teramoto
Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Several types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Materials and methods

We investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

Results

The number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

Keywords

Laparoscopic surgery Colorectal cancer Robotic scope holder Soloassist 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure

Drs. Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki, Kazutoshi Kotani, and Atsushi Teramoto have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:144–150Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandoh T, Shiraishi N, Yamashita Y, Terachi T, Hashizume M, Akira S, Morikawa T, Kitagawa Y, Yanaga K, Endo S, Onishi K, Takiguchi S, Tamaki Y, Hasegawa T, Mimata H, Tabata M, Yozu R, Inomata M, Matsumoto S, Kitano S, Watanabe M (2017) Endoscopic surgery in Japan: The 12th national survey (2012–2013) by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg 10:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watanabe J, Ota M, Fujii S, Suwa H, Ishibe A, Endo I (2016) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy. Br J Surg 103:1276–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brockhaus AC, Sauerland S, Saad S (2016) Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence. BMC Surg 16:71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    den Boer KT, Bruijn M, Jaspers JE, Stassen LP, Erp WF, Jansen A, Go PM, Dankelman J, Gouma DJ (2002) Time-action analysis of instrument positioners in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merola S, Weber P, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Comparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhou HX, Guo YH, Yu XF, Bao SY, Liu JL, Zhang Y, Ren YG (2006) Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 5:115–118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM, Perry WB, Glasgow SC (2013) Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum 56:458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum 59:535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aiono S, Gilbert JM, Soin B, Finlay PA, Gordan A (2002) Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:1267–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takahashi M, Takahashi M, Nishinari N, Matsuya H, Tosha T, Minagawa Y, Shimooki O, Abe T (2017) Clinical evaluation of complete solo surgery with the “ViKY®” robotic laparoscope manipulator. Surg Endosc 31:981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gillen S, Pletzer B, Heiligensetzer A, Wolf P, Kleeff J, Feussner H, Fürst A (2014) Solo-surgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a joystick-guided camera device: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 28:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ohmura Y, Nakagawa M, Suzuki H, Kotani K, Teramoto A (2018) Feasibility and usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist) in laparoscopic surgery. Visc Med 34:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Ota D (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy A, Bonjer HJ (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arezzo A, Schurr MO, Braun A, Buess GF (2005) Experimental assessment of a new mechanical endoscopic solosurgery system: endofreeze. Surg Endosc 19:581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee YS, Jeon HG, Lee SR, Jeong WJ, Yang SC, Han WK (2010) The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy: initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery. Surg Endosc 24:2755–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Omote K, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Arbter K, Wei GQ, Siewert JR, Hirzinger G (1999) Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. Am J Surg 177:321–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tran H (2011) Robotic single-port hernia surgery. JSLS 15:309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stolzenburg JU, Franz T, Kallidonis P, Minh D, Dietel A, Hicks J, Nicolaus M, Al-Aown A, Liatsikos E (2011) Comparison of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder with human assistants during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 107:970–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bann S, Khan M, Hernandez J, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Rockall T, Darzi A (2003) Robotics in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 196:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang SY, Roh KH, Kim YN, Cho M, Lim SH, Son T, Hyung WJ, Kim HI (2017) Surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1770–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wijsman PJM, Broeders IAMJ, Brenkman HJ, Szold A, Forgione A, Schreuder HWR, Consten ECJ, Draaisma WA, Verheijen PM, Ruurda JP, Kaufman Y (2017) First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device. Surg Endosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5957-3 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mizuno Y, Narimatsu H, Kodama Y, Matsumura T, Kami M (2014) Mid-career changes in the occupation or specialty among general surgeons, from youth to middle age, have accelerated the shortage of general surgeons in Japan. Surg Today 44:601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen YC, Shih CL, Wu CH, Chiu CH (2014) Exploring factors that have caused a decrease in surgical manpower in Taiwan. Surg Innov 21:520–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deedar-Ali-Khawaja R, Khan SM (2010) Trends of surgical career selection among medical students and graduates: a global perspective. J Surg Educ 67:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marschall JG, Karimuddin AA (2003) Decline in popularity of general surgery as a career choice in North America: review of postgraduate residency training selection in Canada, 1996–2001. World J Surg 27:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dunlap KD, Wanzer L (1998) Is the robotic arm a cost-effective surgical tool? AORN J 68:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cancer Treatment Support CenterOkayama City HospitalOkayamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryOkayama City HospitalOkayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryYakage HospitalOdaJapan
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryKasaoka Daiichi HospitalKasaokaJapan

Personalised recommendations