Search

Background: Recently introduced robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) facilitates endoscopic surgical manipulation and thereby reduces the learning curve for (advanced) laparoscopic surgery. We present our learning curve with RALS for aortobifemoral bypass grafting as a treatment for aortoiliac occlusive disease.Methods: Between February 2002 and May 2005, 17 patients were treated in our institution with robot-assisted laparoscopic aorto-bifemoral bypasses. Dissection was performed laparoscopically and the robot was used to make the aortic anastomosis. Operative time, clamping time, and anastomosis time, as well as blood loss and hospital stay, were used as parameters to evaluate the results and to compare the first eight (group 1) and the last nine patients (group2).Results: Total median operative, clamping, and anastomosis times were 365 min (range: 225-589 min), 86 min (range: 25-205 min), and 41 min (range: 22-110 min), respectively. Total median blood loss was 1,000 ml (range: 100-5,800 ml). Median hospital stay was 4 days (range: 3-57 days). In this series 16/18 anastomoses were completed with the use of the robotic system. Three patients were converted (two in group 1, one in group 2), and one patient died postoperatively (group 1). Median clamping and anastomosis times were significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (111 min [range: 85-205 min] versus 57.5 min [range: 25-130 min], p < 0.01 and 74 min [range: 40-110 min] versus 36 min [range: 22-69 min], p < 0.01, respectively) Total operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay showed no significant difference between groups 1 and 2.Conclusions: Robot-assisted aortic anastomosis was shown to have a steep learning curve with considerable reduction of clamping and anastomosis times. However, due to a longer learning curve for laparoscopic dissection of the abdominal aorta, operation times were not significantly shortened. Even with robotic assistance, laparoscopic aortoiliac surgery remains a complex procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Considerable training is necessary to master laparoscopic suturing and knot-tying. Robotic systems are assumed to facilitate these skills and shorten the learning curve. The effect of laparoscopic experience and robotic assistance on the learning curve of vascular anastomoses was studied.Methods: A laparoscopically experienced surgeon and a laparoscopically inexperienced surgeon made alternating laparoscopic vascular anastomoses and robot-assisted laparoscopic vascular anastomoses using a Zeus-Aesop surgical robotic system with various prosthetic conduits and suture materials in a laparoscopic training box.Results: Neither laparoscopic method influenced the quality score or leakage rate, but with laparoscopic experience, significantly fewer failures were made. Suturing and knot-tying were faster with laparoscopic experience both with and without the robotic system, and fewer stitch actions and knot actions were performed. The learning curves of both surgeons were not improved by the robotic system.Conclusions: Experience is the most important factor in the performance of laparoscopic vascular anastomoses. The robotic system was not helpful in shortening the learning curve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RLC). Surgical trainees performed the LC to avoid the surgeon's experience bias.Methods: Two surgical trainees performed 10 CLCs and 10 RLCs at random with a Zeus-Aesop Surgical Robotic System. The primary efficacy parameters were the total time and the number of actions involved in the procedure. The secondary parameters were setup and dissection times, and the number of grasping and dissection actions. Surgical complications were evaluated.Results: For CLC and RLC, respectively, the total times were 95.4 +/- 28 min and 123.5 +/- 33.3 min and the total actions were 420 +/- 176.3 and 363.5 +/- 158.2. For CLC, the times required for setup (21 +/- 10.4 min) and dissection (50.2 +/- 17.7 min) were less than for RLC (33.8 +/- 11.3 min and 72 +/- 24.3 min, respectively). The numbers of grasping and dissection actions were not significantly different: 41.4 +/- 26.5 and 378 +/- 173.7, respectively, for CLC versus 48.9 +/- 27 and 314.6 +/- 141.9, respectively, for RLC.Conclusion: Although feasible, RLC requires significantly more time than CLC because of slower performed actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. Methods: To evaluate the surgical efficiency in a set of basic endoscopic movements, 20 medical students without any surgical experience were selected to perform at random a set of laparoscopic tasks either manually or robotic assisted (Zeus). This task consisted of dropping beads into receptacles, running a 25-cm rope, capping a hypodermic needle, suturing, and performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a cadaver liver of a pig. A quantitative time–action analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and skill performance in terms of time and the number of actions. Results: The dropping beads exercise and the laparoscopic cholecystectomy required more time when performed with robotic assistance, as compared with manual performance (respectively, median, 78.5 s; range, 63 – 122 s vs median, 144.5 s; range, 100 – 169 s; p <0.01 and median, 34.0 min; range 11–44 min vs median, 46.5 s; range, 21 – 79 min; p = 0.05). A tendency toward fewer total actions in all the robotically assisted exercises was observed. However, significance was shown only in the rope-passing task (median, 71; range, 59 – 87 vs median, 62; range, 57–80; p = 0.05). Grasping the beads, the rope, and either the needle or the cap were tasks that required fewer actions to complete when performed with robotically assistance (respectively, median, 11; range, 10 – 14 vs median, 12.5; range, 11 – 15; p <0.01; median, 56; range, 55 – 60 vs median, 60.5 min; range, 55 – 65; p = 0.03, and median, 6; range, 4 – 21 vs median, 10.5; range, 6 – 38; p = 0.02). As compared with the robotically assisted rope-passing exercise, more failures were made in the manually performed procedure (p = 0.03), mainly caused by unintentional dropping of the rope (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery by participants without any surgical experience might require more time, but actions can be performed equally or more precisely as compared with manual laparoscopic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]