Our Experience with Free Hand Camera
Authors:
P. Zonča; F. Brenig; J. Henkel; C. A. Jacobi
Authors place of work:
Zentrum für Viszeral und Minimal Invasive Chirurgie, Wesseling, Köln am Rhein, Německo, Chefarzt: Prof. Dr. med. C. A. Jacobi, PhD.
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2010, roč. 89, č. 3, s. 188-193.
Category:
Monothematic special - Original
Summary
Aim:
The evaluation of the contribution of Free Hand camera to laparoscopic resection of colon sigmoideum in clinical praxis.
Material and method:
Free Hand camera is an automatic camera system controlled by a surgeon. In the prospective-retrospective trial we have compared two groups of 20 patients together. In the first group there were patients with laparoscopic resection of colon sigmoideum with the Free hand camera usage and in the second group there were patients with laparoscopic resection of colon sigmoideum with a human assistant. We evaluated the length of surgery and surgeon’s comfort. The intraoperative data of both of the patient groups were compared with the usage of physiological and operative score (POSSUM).
Results:
The length of surgery in the group with the human assistant and Free Hand camera were 149, and 161 minutes respectively. There is no statistically significant difference in the length of surgery (p = 0.05) in both of the groups. The surgeon in both of the patient groups evaluated the operative view and comfort as good.
Conclusion:
The pilot study has shown the usability of Free Hand in praxis. The daily usage of Free Hand camera is possible in elective as well as acute surgeries after managing of the learning curve.
Key words:
Free Hand – laparoscopy
Zdroje
1. Copeland, G. P., Jones, D., Walters, M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br. J. Surg., 1991 Mar; 78(3): 355–360.
2. Ballantyne, G. H. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring, Surg. Endosc., 2002, 16: 1389–1402.
3. Ryska M. Od otevřené klasické, přes laparoskopickou, po robotem asistovanou laparoskopickou chirurgii. Rozhl. Chir., 2006, 85: 9, 455–462.
4. Moran, M. E. Stationary and automated laparoscopically assisted technologies. J. Laparoendosc. Surg., 1993, 3: 221–227.
5. Begin, E., Gagner, M., Hurteau, R., de Santis, S., Pomp, A. A robotic camera for laparoscopic surgery, conception and experimental results. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc., 1995, 5: 6–11.
6. Gagner, M., Gegin, E., Hurteau, R., Pomp, A. Robotic interactive laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lancet, 1994, 343: 596–597.
7. Geis, W. P. Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improvede efficiency and decreased resource utilisation in complex minimally invasive procedures. Proceedings of 4th International Symposium, Medicine Meets Virtual Reality: 4, Healthcare in the Information Age: Future Tools for Transforming Medicine. San Diego, 1996.
8. Cadeddu, J., Stoianovici, D., Kavoussi, L. R. Robotic surgery in urology. Urol. Clin. N. Am., 1998, 25: 75–85.
9. Gracia, C. Clinical utility of a robotic assistant during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference for Minimally Invasive Therapy, Milan, Italy, 1996.
10. Omote, K., Feussner, H., Ungeheuer, A., Arbter, K., Wei, G. Q., Siewert, J. R., Hirzinger, G. Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. Am. J. Surg., 1999 Apr; 177(4): 321–324.
11. Yavuz, Y., Ystgaard, B., Skogvoll, E., Marik, R. A comparative study evaluating the performance of surgical robots AESOP and Endoassist. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percht. Tech., 2000, 10, 163–167.
12. Gilbert, J. M. The EndoAssist robotic kamera holder as an aid to the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl., 2009, 91: 389–393.
13. Arezzo, A., Ulmer, F., Weiss, O., Schurr, M. O., Hamad, M., Buess, G. F. Experimental trial on solo surgery for minimally invasive therapy: comparison of different systéme in a phantom model. Surg. Endosc., 2000, 14, 955–959.
14. Fakhry, M., Gallgher, B., Bello, F., Hanna, G. B. Visual exposure using single-handed magnet-driven intra-abdominal wireless camera in minimal access surgery. Surg. Endosc., 2009, 23: 539–543.
15. Rentschler, M. E., Dumpert, J., Platt, S. R., Ahmed, S. I., Farritor, S. M., Oleynikov, D. Mobile in vivo camera robots provide sole visual feedback for abdominal exploration and cholecytectomy. Surg. Endosc., 2006, 20: 135–138.
16. Oleynikov, D., Rentschler, M., Hadzialis, A., Dumpert, J., Platt, S. R., Farritor, S. Miniature robots can assist in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg. Ensosc., 2005, 19: 473–476.
17. Aiono, S., Gilbert, J. M., Soin, B., Finlay, P. A., Gordan, A. Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg. Endosc., 2002, 16: 1267–1270.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2010 Číslo 3
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole vs. Tramadol in Postoperative Analgesia
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Liver Metastases of Other than Colorectal Origin
- Modern Algorithms for Diagnostics and Treatment of Anorectal Fistulas in Clinical Practice– Case Reviews
- Iatrogenic Bile Ducts Injuries
- Gastric Carcinoma and Current Situation