Ruurda J P, Broeders I A M J, Pulles B, Kappelhof F M, van der Werken C
Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3508 GA, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Surg Endosc. 2004 Aug;18(8):1249-52. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-9191-9. Epub 2004 May 28.
Robotic surgery systems were introduced to overcome the disadvantages of endoscopic surgery. The goal of this study was to assess whether robot assistance could support endoscopic surgeons in performing a complex endoscopic task.
Five experienced endoscopic surgeons performed end-to-end anastomosis on post-mortem porcine small intestine. The procedure was performed both with standard endoscopic techniques and with robotic assistance (da Vinci system, Intuitive Surgical, Sunny vale, CA). It was performed in three different working directions with a horizontal, vertical, and diagonal position of the bowel. Anastomosis time, number of stitches, knots, time per stitch, suture ruptures, and the number of stitch errors were recorded. Also, an action analysis was performed.
Anastomosis time, number of stitches, and the number of knots did not differ significantly between the two groups. The time needed per stitch was significantly shorter with robot assistance (81.4 sec/stitch vs 95.9 sec/stitch, p = 0.005). More suture ruptures occurred in the robot group (0 (0-2) vs 0 (0-0), p = 0.003). In the standard group more stitch errors were found (2 (0-5) vs 0 (0-3), p = 0.017). These results were comparable for three different working directions. The action analysis, however, showed significant benefits of robotic assistance. The benefits were greatest in a vertical bowel position.
Robot assistance might offer added value to experienced endoscopic surgeons in the performance of a small-bowel anastomosis in an experimental setup, even though total anastomosis time could not be demonstrated to be shorter and some suture tears occurred due to the lack of force feedback.
引入机器人手术系统以克服内镜手术的缺点。本研究的目的是评估机器人辅助是否能支持内镜外科医生完成复杂的内镜任务。
五名经验丰富的内镜外科医生在猪尸体的小肠上进行端端吻合术。该手术分别采用标准内镜技术和机器人辅助(达芬奇系统,直观外科公司,加利福尼亚州森尼韦尔)进行。在肠道的水平、垂直和对角三种不同工作方向上进行。记录吻合时间、缝线数量、打结数量、每针时间、缝线破裂情况和缝线错误数量。此外,还进行了动作分析。
两组之间的吻合时间、缝线数量和打结数量没有显著差异。机器人辅助下每针所需时间明显更短(81.4秒/针 vs 95.9秒/针,p = 0.005)。机器人组发生的缝线破裂更多(0(0 - 2)vs 0(0 - 0),p = 0.003)。在标准组中发现的缝线错误更多(2(0 - 5)vs 0(0 - 3),p = 0.017)。这一结果在三种不同工作方向上具有可比性。然而,动作分析显示了机器人辅助的显著优势。在肠道垂直位置时优势最大。
在实验设置中,机器人辅助可能会为经验丰富的内镜外科医生进行小肠吻合术提供附加价值,尽管总吻合时间并未显示更短,并且由于缺乏力反馈出现了一些缝线撕裂情况。