Format

Send to

Choose Destination

Comparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery, Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey 07601, USA.

Abstract

The use of a robotic camera holder (AESOP 3000; Computer Motion, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, U.S.A.) during laparoscopic surgery is slowly becoming more popular with laparoscopic surgeons. However, few published reports document the effects of the robot on operative outcomes or operative times. In the current study, we compared the use of a voice-controlled robotic camera holder to a human camera holder in a series of laparoscopic colectomies. The outcome data measured included the number of patients with postoperative complications, the patients' length of stay at the hospital, and the operative times for the procedures. There were 2 complications among the 11 patients in group 1 (colectomies performed without a robotic camera holder), versus 2 complications among the 15 patients in group 2 (colectomies performed with a robotic camera holder) (P = NS). Patients in group 1 had an average length of stay of 4.1 days, versus 4.4 days for those in group 2 (P = NS). The operative time for group 1 was 235 minutes, compared with 213 minutes for group 2 (P = NS). The use of a voice-controlled robotic camera holder does not alter the length of the operative procedure, the patient's length of stay, or postoperative morbidity. However, surgeons often have a subjective sense that there is less smudging, fogging, and inadvertent movements of the laparoscope when it is controlled by a robotic system. In addition, using a voice-controlled robot as a camera holder does eliminate the need for a surgical assistant.

PMID:
12008762
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center