Comparative study of human and robotic camera control in laparoscopic biliary and colon surgery.

PURPOSE

Despite the growing clinical use of active robotic camera holders there is still a lack of clinical feasibility studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the use of a voice controlled robotic camera holder (AESOP 3000, Computer Motion, Goleta, California) to a human camera holder in a series of laparoscopic cholecystectomies and colectomies. Compliance with AESOP, abnormal operative events or complications, operative time, and the duration of hospitalization were prospectively recorded and compared to data recorded before the introduction of the robotic system.

RESULTS

Compliance with AESOP was good. There were no abnormal operative events, no differences in operative time, complications, or the mean duration of hospitalization between the patients operated with a robotic or a human camera holder.

CONCLUSION

The use of a robotic camera holder does not alter the length of the operative procedure, the duration of hospitalization, or postoperative morbidity. It is a safe and feasible approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or colectomy.