The AESOP robot system in laparoscopic surgery: increased risk or advantage for surgeon and patient? Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. [Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-lap-cholecystectomy. Results of a prospective, randomized study]. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Randomized trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and mini-cholecystectomy. Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial.
The aim of this study was to examine the advantages and risks of the Automated Endoscopic System for Optical Positioning (AESOP) 3000 robot system during uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomies or laparoscopic hernioplasty.
                In a randomized study, we examined two groups of 120 patients each with the diagnosis cholecystolithiasis respectively the unilateral inguinal hernia. We worked with the AESOP 3000, a robotic arm system that is voice-controlled by the surgeon. The subjective and objective comfort of the surgeon as well as the course and length of the operation were measured.
                The robot-assisted operations required significantly longer preparation and operation times. With regard to the necessary commands and manual camera corrections, the assistant group was favored. The same was true for the subjective evaluation of the surgical course by the surgeon.
                Our study showed that the use of AESOP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hernioplasty is possible in 94% of all cases. The surgeon must accept a definite loss of comfort as well as a certain loss of time against the advantage of saving on personnel. The robotic surgical system overcomes many technological obstacles of conventional laparoscopic surgery, and possesses enormous clinical applied potential. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                Forty patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A (n=20) underwent Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and patients in group B (n=20) received conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The parameters on operative field, operative time, the number of actions, the rate of operative errors and minimal trauma were evaluated and compared between the two groups.
                The number of clearing camera (1.1+/-1.0 times) and the time of adjusting the operative field (2.2+/-0.7 minutes) in group A were significantly less than those (4.5+/-1.5 times) and (7.5+/-1.2 minutes) in group B. The number of dissection actions (337+/-86 times) and the rate of operative errors (10%) in group A were less than those (389+/-94 times), (25%) in group B. The total operation time (104.9+/-20.5 minutes) and setup time (29.5+/-9.8 minutes) in group A were significantly longer than those (78.6+/-17.1 minutes), (12.6+/-2.5 minutes) in group B. Blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were similar. No postoperative complications occurred in both groups, and open cholecystectomy was performed in each group.
                Zeus robot-assisted cholecystectomy inherits the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. The Zeus robotic surgical system is better than conventional laparoscopic technique in controlling the operative field and can be manipulated precisely and stably though it requires more operative time. The role of the human camera holder during laparoscopic surgery keeps valuable personnel from other duties. EndoAssist is a robotic camera-holding device controlled by the operator's head movements. This study assesses its introduction into clinical practice.
                Ninety-three patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to have either the robotic (40) or a human (46) assistant. Seven patients converted to open operation were excluded. Six surgeons were evaluated. Operating time and subjective assessments were recorded. Learning curves were constructed.
                The mean operating time was less using the robotic assistant (66 min) than with human assistance (74 min) (p < 0.05, two-tailed t-test). The learning curves for operating time showed that within three operations surgeons were trained in using the robot. The device was safe in use.
                The EndoAssist operating device is a significant asset in laparoscopic surgery and a suitable substitute for a human assistant. Surgeons became competent in the use of the robot within three operations. The robot offers stability and good control of the television image in laparoscopic surgery. To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice.
                This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999.
                Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths.
                Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LCCE) was gaining acceptance rapidly, when several institutions could demonstrate the safety of this minimal invasive treatment modality. Nevertheless prospective randomised studies still are missing to prove the advantages of this new treatment modality in contrast to open cholecystectomy. 77 patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis were treated by LCCE (n = 40) or mini-lap CCE (n = 37) in a prospective, randomised study. As preliminary results, there were no differences in duration of anesthesia and operation time, perioperative complications or postoperative need for analgetics. Patients with LCCE had significant less postoperative pain, less restriction of total vital capacity and a shorter postoperative hospital stay as parameters of a diminished operative trauma. This study examined the impact of virtual reality (VR) surgical simulation on improvement of psychomotor skills relevant to the performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                Sixteen surgical trainees performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patients in the operating room (OR). The participants were then randomized to receive VR training (ten repetitions of all six tasks on the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer-Virtual Reality (MIST-VR)) or no training. Subsequently, all subjects performed a further laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the OR. Both operative procedures were recorded on videotape, and assessed by two independent and blinded observers using predefined objective criteria. Time to complete the procedure, error score and economy of movement score were assessed during the laparoscopic procedure in the OR.
                No differences in baseline variables were found between the two groups. Surgeons who received VR training performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy significantly faster than the control group (P=0.021). Furthermore, those who had VR training showed significantly greater improvement in error (P=0.003) and economy of movement (P=0.003) scores.
                Surgeons who received VR simulator training showed significantly greater improvement in performance in the OR than those in the control group. VR surgical simulation is therefore a valid tool for training of laparoscopic psychomotor skills and could be incorporated into surgical training programmes.
                Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The outcomes after traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC; one 10-mm port, one 12-mm port and two 5-mm ports) and minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC; three 3-mm ports and one 12-mm port) for gallstone disease were compared.
                The study was a randomized, single-blind trial comparing LC with MLC. Only elective patients were eligible for inclusion. LC was a routine procedure at the institution in which the study was performed, whereas MLC was introduced after a short training period. The randomization period was from January to December 2001.
                Of 175 patients who had elective minimal access cholecystectomy during the randomization period, 135 entered the trial: 68 underwent LC and 67 underwent MLC. The groups were matched for age, sex and preoperative characteristics. Median (range) operating times for LC and MLC were similar (45 (20-120) and 50 (20-170) min respectively). Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, the time for the patient to resume walking, eating and passing stools, and median hospital stay were the same in the two groups. The level of postoperative pain was lower in the MLC group at 1 h (P = 0.011), 3 h (P = 0.012), 6 h (P = 0.003), 12 h (P = 0.052) and 24 h (P = 0.034). Patients who had MLC received fewer injections of analgesic (P = 0.036) and more patients in this group expressed satisfaction with the cosmetic result (P = 0.001).
                MLC took a similar time to perform and caused less postoperative pain than the standard laparoscopic procedure. Reducing the port size further enhanced the advantages of laparoscopic over open cholecystectomy.
                Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Three hundred and ten patients having elective cholecystectomy were randomized to either laparoscopic cholecystectomy or mini-cholecystectomy. There were 155 patients in each group. Conversion to open cholecystectomy was significantly more common with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (13 versus 4 per cent) and complications were significantly more frequent with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (9 versus 3 per cent). If laparoscopic cholecystectomy was successful, hospital stay was significantly shorter than for mini-cholecystectomy (2 versus 3 days respectively), but overall the hospital stay was not significantly different. Postoperative analgesia requirements were reduced and return to normal activities and to work were faster after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was no significant cost difference between the two procedures. The use of smaller instruments during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been proposed to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmesis. However, despite several recent trials, the effects of the use of miniaturized instruments for LC are not well established. We hypothesized that LC using miniports (M-LC) is safe and produces less incisional pain and better cosmetic results than LC performed conventionally (C-LC).
                A patient- and observer-blinded, randomized, prospective clinical trial.
                A tertiary care, university-based hospital.
                Seventy-nine patients scheduled for an elective LC who agreed to participate in this trial were randomized to undergo surgery using 1 of the 2 instrument sets. The criteria for exclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV, age older than 70 years, liver or coagulation disorders, previous major abdominal surgical procedures, and acute cholecystitis or acute choledocholithiasis.
                Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with either conventional or miniaturized instruments.
                Patients' age, sex, operative time, operative blood loss, intraoperative complications, early and late postoperative incisional pain, and cosmetic results.
                Thirty-three C-LCs and 34 M-LCs were performed and analyzed. There were 8 conversions (24%) to the standard technique in the M-LC group. No intraoperative or major postoperative complications occurred in either group. The average incisional pain score on the first postoperative day was significantly less in the M-LC group (3.9 vs 4.9; P = .04). No significant differences occurred in the mean scores for pain on postoperative days 3, 7, and 28. However, 90% of patients in the M-LC group and only 74% of patients in the C-LC group had no pain (visual analog scale score of 0) at 28 days postoperatively (P = .05). Cosmetic results were superior in the M-LC group according to both the study nurse's and the patients' assessments (38.9 vs 28.9; P<.001, and 38.8 vs 33.4; P = .001, respectively).
                Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be safely performed using 10-mm umbilical, 5-mm epigastric, 2-mm subcostal, and 2-mm lateral ports. The use of mini-laparoscopic techniques resulted in decreased early postoperative incisional pain, avoided late incisional discomfort, and produced superior cosmetic results. Although improved instrument durability and better optics are needed for widespread use of miniport techniques, this approach can be routinely offered to many properly selected patients undergoing elective LC.
Robot assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not seem to offer any significant advantages over human assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, all trials had a high risk of systematic errors or bias (that is, risk of overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm). All trials were small, with few or no outcomes. Hence, the risk of random errors (that is, play of chance) is high. Further randomised trials with low risk of bias or random errors are needed.