Top

Published in:

01-05-2018 | New Technology

First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device

Authors: Paul J. M. Wijsman, Ivo A. M. J. Broeders, Hylke J. Brenkman, Amir Szold, Antonello Forgione, Henk W. R. Schreuder, Esther C. J. Consten, Werner A. Draaisma, Paul M. Verheijen, Jelle P. Ruurda, Yuval Kaufman

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Background

Robotic camera holders for endoscopic surgery have been available for 20 years but market penetration is low. The current camera holders are controlled by voice, joystick, eyeball tracking, or head movements, and this type of steering has proven to be successful but excessive disturbance of surgical workflow has blocked widespread introduction. The Autolap™ system (MST, Israel) uses a radically different steering concept based on image analysis. This may improve acceptance by smooth, interactive, and fast steering. These two studies were conducted to prove safe and efficient performance of the core technology.

Methods

A total of 66 various laparoscopic procedures were performed with the AutoLap™ by nine experienced surgeons, in two multi-center studies; 41 cholecystectomies, 13 fundoplications including hiatal hernia repair, 4 endometriosis surgeries, 2 inguinal hernia repairs, and 6 (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomies. The use of the AutoLap™ system was evaluated in terms of safety, image stability, setup and procedural time, accuracy of imaged-based movements, and user satisfaction.

Results

Surgical procedures were completed with the AutoLap™ system in 64 cases (97%). The mean overall setup time of the AutoLap™ system was 4 min (04:08 ± 0.10). Procedure times were not prolonged due to the use of the system when compared to literature average. The reported user satisfaction was 3.85 and 3.96 on a scale of 1 to 5 in two studies. More than 90% of the image-based movements were accurate. No system-related adverse events were recorded while using the system.

Conclusion

Safe and efficient use of the core technology of the AutoLap™ system was demonstrated with high image stability and good surgeon satisfaction. The results support further clinical studies that will focus on usability, improved ergonomics and additional image-based features.

Dunlap KD, Wanzer L (1998) Is the robotic arm a cost-effective surgical tool? AORN J 68:265–272CrossRefPubMed

Ballantyne GH (2002) The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129689-200202000-00001 CrossRefPubMed

Berguer R (1999) Surgery and ergonomics. Arch Surg 134:1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.134.9.1011 CrossRefPubMed

Hu C-L, Yang C-Y, Lin Z-S, Yang S-Y, Kuo C-H, Lin M-T (2013) An interactive method for achieving ergonomically optimum conditions during laparoscopic surgery. J Robot Surg 7:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-012-0353-4 CrossRefPubMed

Miller K, Benden M, Pickens A, Shipp E, Zheng Q (2012) Ergonomics principles associated with laparoscopic surgeon Injury/Illness. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 54:1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812451046 CrossRef

Van Der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 23:1365–1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0184-6 CrossRef

Wagner AA, Varkarakis IM, Link RE, Sullivan W, Su LM (2006) Comparison of surgical performance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy of two robotic camera holders, EndoAssist and AESOP: a pilot study. Urology 68:70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.003 CrossRefPubMed

Kommu SS, Rimington P, Anderson C, Rané A (2007) Initial experience with the EndoAssist camera-holding robot in laparoscopic urological surgery. J Robot Surg 1:133–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-007-0010-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Beckmeier L, Klapdor R, Soergel P, Kundu S, Hillemanns P, Hertel H (2014) Evaluation of active camera control systems in gynecological surgery: construction, handling, comfort, surgeries and results. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289:341–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3004-8 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Maheshwari M, Ind T (2015) Concurrent use of a robotic uterine manipulator and a robotic laparoscope holder to achieve assistant-less solo laparoscopy: the double ViKY. J Robot Surg 9:211–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0518-z CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yong N, Grange P, Eldred-Evans D (2016) Impact of laparoscopic lens contamination in operating theaters: a study on the frequency and duration of lens contamination and commonly utilized techniques to maintain clear vision. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:286–289. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000289 CrossRefPubMed

12.

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 107:970–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09656.x CrossRefPubMed

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 Other Interv Tech 16:1267–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-9174-7 CrossRef

14.

Geis WP, Kim HC, Brennan EJ, McAfee PC, Wang Y (1996) Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improved efficiency and decreased resource utilization in complex minimally invasive surgical procedures. Stud Health Technol Inform 29:471–481PubMed

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 Other Interv Tech 28:164–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3142-x CrossRef

16.

Shushan A, Mohamed H, Magos AL (1999) How long does laparoscopic surgery really take? Lessons learned from 1000 operative laparoscopies. Hum Reprod 14:39–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.1.39 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Minutolo V, Licciardello A, Arena M, Nicosia A, Stefano BDI (2014) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of acute cholecystitis: comparison of outcomes and costs between early and delayed cholecystectomy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18:40–46PubMed

18.

Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93:553–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5325 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Keus F, de Jong J, Gooszen HG, Laarhoven CJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006231

20.

Memon MA, Subramanya MS, Hossain MB, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon B (2015) Laparoscopic anterior versus posterior fundoplication for gastro-esophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Surg 39:981–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2889-0 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Proske JM, Dagher I, Franco D (2004) Comparative study of human and robotic camera control in laparoscopic biliary and colon surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14:345–348. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2004.14.345 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kalteis M, Pistrich R, Schimetta W, Polz W (2007) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as solo surgery with the aid of a robotic camera holder: a case-control study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:277–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e31806030ae CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Urologists at work comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154:2134–2136CrossRefPubMed

Title: First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device
Authors: Paul J. M. Wijsman
Ivo A. M. J. Broeders
Hylke J. Brenkman
Amir Szold
Antonello Forgione
Henk W. R. Schreuder
Esther C. J. Consten
Werner A. Draaisma
Paul M. Verheijen
Jelle P. Ruurda
Yuval Kaufman
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5957-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Benefits of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal hypertension: a case-matched study

MIVAT: the last 2 years experience, tips and techniques after more than 10 years

Comparison of clinical efficacies and safeties of lumen-apposing metal stent and conventional-type metal stent-assisted EUS-guided pancreatic wall-off necrosis drainage: a real-life experience in a tertiary hospital

Comparison of laparoscopic jejunostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube with jejunal extension: long-term durability and nutritional outcomes

Effect of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparison of short-term outcomes with laparoscopic and open surgeries

Outcome trends and safety measures after 30 years of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and pooled data analysis