Evaluation of a new robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgical system for procedures in small cavities

  • Robert BergholzEmail author
  • Sanne Botden
  • Johannes Verweij
  • Stefaan Tytgat
  • Wim Van Gemert
  • Michael Boettcher
  • Heiko Ehlert
  • Konrad Reinshagen
  • Stefano Gidaro
Original Article


No data exists concerning the application of a new robotic system with 3-mm instruments (Senhance™, Transenterix, Milano, Italy) in small cavities. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the system for its performance of intracorporal suturing in small boxes simulating small body cavities. Translucent plastic boxes of decreasing volumes (2519–90 ml) were used. The procedures (two single stitches, each with two consecutive surgical square knots) were performed by a system-experienced and three system-inexperienced surgeons in each box, starting within the largest box, consecutively exchanging the boxes into smaller ones. With this approach, the total amount of procedures performed by each surgeon increased with decreasing volume of boxes being operated in. Outcomes included port placement, time, task completion, internal and external instrument/instrument collisions and instrument/box collisions. The procedures could be performed in all boxes. The operating time decreased gradually in the first three boxes (2519–853 ml), demonstrating a learning curve. The increase of operating time from boxes of 599 ml and lower may be attributed to the increased complexity of the procedure in small cavities as in the smallest box with the dimensions of 2.9 × 6.3 × 4.9 cm. This is also reflected by the parallel increase of internal instrument–instrument collisions. With the introduction of 3-mm instruments in a new robotic surgical system, we were able to perform intracorporal suturing and knot tying in cavities as small as 90 ml. Whether this system is comparable to conventional three-port 3-mm laparoscopic surgery in small cavities—such as in pediatric surgery—has to be evaluated in further studies.


Robotics Laparoscopy Computer-assisted laparoscopy Pediatric surgery 



The authors thank Fred Brueckner, Wouter Donders, Sara Lazzaretti, Raul Blanco Sanchez and Anastasios Karamanidis for technical and logistic support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Robert Bergholz is a stockholder of TITAN Medical (a competing robotic system (SPORT) under development), Transenterix and a medical consultant of Transenterix. Sanne Botden, Wim Van Gemert, Stefaan Tytgat and Stefano Gidaro are medical consultants of Transenterix. Transenterix provided the robotic system placed at the UKE Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf for study purposes but no other further material. Transenterix covered travel expenses for Sanne Botden, Wim Van Gemert, Stefaan Tytgat and Robert Bergholz for an introductory meeting in Milano, Italy. Johannes Verweij, Michael Boettcher, Heiko Ehlert and Konrad Reinshagen have nothing to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Lacher M, Kuebler JF, Dingemann J, Ure BM (2014) Minimal invasive surgery in the newborn: current status and evidence. Semin Pediatr Surg 23:249–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spinoit A-F, Nguyen H, Subramaniam R (2017) Role of robotics in children: a brave new world! Eur Urol Focus 3:172–180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cave J, Clarke S (2018) Paediatric robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100:18–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Haasteren G, Levine S, Hayes W (2009) Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment. Pediatrics 124:1642–1649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thakre AA, Bailly Y, Sun LW, Van Meer F, Yeung CK (2008) Is smaller workspace a limitation for robot performance in laparoscopy? J Urol 179:1138–1142. (discussion 1142–1143) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballouhey Q, Clermidi P, Cros J, Grosos C, Rosa-Arsène C, Bahans C, Caire F, Longis B, Compagnon R, Fourcade L (2018) Comparison of 8 and 5 mm robotic instruments in small cavities : 5 or 8 mm robotic instruments for small cavities? Surg Endosc 32:1027–1034. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baek M, Silay MS, Au JK, Huang GO, Elizondo RA, Puttmann KT, Janzen NK, Seth A, Roth DR, Koh CJ (2018) Does the use of 5 mm instruments affect the outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in smaller working spaces? A comparative analysis of infants and older children. J Pediatr Urol. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkelstein JB, Levy AC, Silva MV, Murray L, Delaney C, Casale P (2015) How to decide which infant can have robotic surgery? Just do the math. J Pediatr Urol 11:170.e1–170.e4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderberg M, Kockum CC, Arnbjornsson E (2009) Morgagni hernia repair in a small child using da Vinci robotic instruments—a case report. Eur J Pediatr Surg 19:110–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rossitto C, Gueli Alletti S, Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Costantini B, Gallotta V, Selvaggi L, Monterossi G, Restaino S, Gidaro S, Scambia G (2016) Learning a new robotic surgical device: telelap Alf X in gynaecological surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 12:490–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hutchins AR, Manson RJ, Lerebours R, Farjat AE, Cox ML, Mann BP, Zani S (2018) Objective assessment of the early stages of the learning curve for the Senhance surgical robotic system. J Surg Educ. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sng KK, Hara M, Shin J-W, Yoo B-E, Yang K-S, Kim S-H (2013) The multiphasic learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery. Surg Endosc 27:3297–3307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    George EI, Brand TC, LaPorta A, Marescaux J, Satava RM (2018) Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. JSLS. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollands CM, Dixey LN (2002) Applications of robotic surgery in pediatric patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meehan JJ, Sandler A (2008) Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 22:177–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kawal T, Srinivasan AK, Shrivastava D, Chu DI, Van Batavia J, Weiss D, Long C, Shukla AR (2018) Pediatric robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: does age matter? J Pediatr Urol. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krauss A, Neumuth T, Wachowiak R, Donaubauer B, Korb W, Burgert O, Muensterer OJ (2012) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted Nissen fundoplication in an infant pig model. Pediatr Surg Int 28:357–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jackson HT, Kane TD (2014) Advances in minimally invasive surgery in pediatric patients. Adv Pediatr 61:149–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chapman B, O’Callaghan C, Coxon R, Glover P, Jaroszkiewicz G, Howseman A, Mansfield P, Small P, Milner AD, Coupland RE (1990) Estimation of lung volume in infants by echo planar imaging and total body plethysmography. Arch Dis Child 65:168–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatric SurgeryUKE Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)HamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric SurgeryRadboudumc-Amalia Children’s HospitalNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric SurgeryWilhemina Children’s Hospital, University Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Pediatric SurgeryUniversity Medical Center Maastricht, University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Central OR Management for General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  6. 6.Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological SciencesUniversity G. D’AnnunzioChieti-PescaraItaly

Personalised recommendations