Arezzo A, Ulmer F, Weiss O, Schurr M O, Hamad M, Buess G F
Section for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen, Germany.
Surg Endosc. 2000 Oct;14(10):955-9. doi: 10.1007/s004640000106.
Robotic aid in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is becoming more and more common. We designed an experimental trial in a phantom model to verify the feasibility of solo surgery for MIS. By performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a phantom model, we compared combinations of different systems available in terms of safety, comfort, and time requirements.
Two surgeons skilled in endoscopic procedures tested the following systems as endoscope holders: the robotic system (AESOP), foot-controlled (AESOP 1000), and voice-controlled (AESOP 2000); the remote controlled FIPS Endoarm, electrically driven and controlled by a finger-ring joystic; the passive system TISKA Endoarm, a mechanical arm moved by hand and fixed by electromagnetical brakes. All of these systems combined with a second TISKA Endoarm as an instrument holder. A combination of two mechanical Martin arms, c, also was tested. The results were compared with those from a control group involving an assistant surgeon. A total of 70 experiments were performed.
The shortest dissection time was registered by the combination of two TISKA Endoarms, with a statistically significant difference as compared with the control group (p < 0.05) and experiments using AESOP 1000 (p < 0.05). The TISKA Endoarm also proved to be more comfortable when used as an instrument holder (p < 0.001 vs Martin arm), and rated second only to AESOP 2000 as an endoscope holder. The rating of AESOP 2000 as endoscope holder was significantly higher than that of all other groups (p < 0.001). The study proved the feasibility of solo surgery. The time needed for dissection was shortest when two TISKA Endoarms were used, demonstrating the possible advantages of solo surgery. The TISKA Endoarm received a subjective positive rating when used as both endoscope holder and instrument holder. The voice control of AESOP 2000 seemed to be a major improvement in the development of an optimal man-machine interface. Nevertheless, the system presents considerable space requirements and does not supply control of 30 degrees optics. The principle of the finger-ring joystick adopted by the FIPS Endoarm seemed very intuitive but lacking in ergonomy.
Laparoscopic solo surgery can be considered a safe procedure, although further technologic developments should lead to improved ergonomy, intuitiveness of handling, and architecture of the systems, offering the surgeon better control, increased precision of action, and reduction in operation time.
机器人辅助微创手术(MIS)正变得越来越普遍。我们在一个模拟模型中设计了一项实验性试验,以验证MIS单人手术的可行性。通过在模拟模型上进行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,我们比较了不同可用系统在安全性、舒适性和时间要求方面的组合。
两名熟练掌握内镜手术的外科医生测试了以下作为内镜固定器的系统:机器人系统(AESOP),包括脚控(AESOP 1000)和语音控制(AESOP 2000);遥控FIPS Endoarm,由指环式操纵杆电动驱动和控制;被动系统TISKA Endoarm,一种由手移动并由电磁制动器固定的机械臂。所有这些系统都与第二个作为器械固定器的TISKA Endoarm相结合。还测试了两个机械Martin臂的组合,c。将结果与涉及一名助理外科医生的对照组结果进行比较。总共进行了70次实验。
两个TISKA Endoarm组合的解剖时间最短,与对照组(p < 0.05)和使用AESOP 1000的实验(p < 0.05)相比,具有统计学显著差异。当用作器械固定器时,TISKA Endoarm也被证明更舒适(与Martin臂相比,p < 0.001),并且作为内镜固定器时仅次于AESOP 2000。AESOP 2000作为内镜固定器的评分显著高于所有其他组(p < 0.001)。该研究证明了单人手术的可行性。使用两个TISKA Endoarm时解剖所需时间最短,证明了单人手术的可能优势。TISKA Endoarm在用作内镜固定器和器械固定器时都获得了主观的正面评价。AESOP 2000的语音控制似乎是优化人机界面发展中的一项重大改进。然而,该系统存在相当大的空间要求,并且不提供30度光学控制。FIPS Endoarm采用的指环式操纵杆原理似乎非常直观,但缺乏人体工程学设计。
腹腔镜单人手术可被视为一种安全的手术方式,尽管进一步的技术发展应能改善人体工程学设计、操作的直观性和系统架构,为外科医生提供更好的控制、提高操作精度并减少手术时间。