Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Several types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Materials and methods

We investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

Results

The number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:144–150

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bandoh T, Shiraishi N, Yamashita Y, Terachi T, Hashizume M, Akira S, Morikawa T, Kitagawa Y, Yanaga K, Endo S, Onishi K, Takiguchi S, Tamaki Y, Hasegawa T, Mimata H, Tabata M, Yozu R, Inomata M, Matsumoto S, Kitano S, Watanabe M (2017) Endoscopic surgery in Japan: The 12th national survey (2012–2013) by the Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery. Asian J Endosc Surg 10:345–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watanabe J, Ota M, Fujii S, Suwa H, Ishibe A, Endo I (2016) Randomized clinical trial of single-incision versus multiport laparoscopic colectomy. Br J Surg 103:1276–1281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brockhaus AC, Sauerland S, Saad S (2016) Single-incision versus standard multi-incision laparoscopic colectomy in patients with malignant or benign colonic disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and assessment of the evidence. BMC Surg 16:71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1689–1694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47:2162–2168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. den Boer KT, Bruijn M, Jaspers JE, Stassen LP, Erp WF, Jansen A, Go PM, Dankelman J, Gouma DJ (2002) Time-action analysis of instrument positioners in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 16:142–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Merola S, Weber P, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH (2002) Comparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou HX, Guo YH, Yu XF, Bao SY, Liu JL, Zhang Y, Ren YG (2006) Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 5:115–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tyler JA, Fox JP, Desai MM, Perry WB, Glasgow SC (2013) Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era. Dis Colon Rectum 56:458–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Keller DS, Senagore AJ, Lawrence JK, Champagne BJ, Delaney CP (2014) Comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 28:212–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum 59:535–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 16:1267–1270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Takahashi M, Takahashi M, Nishinari N, Matsuya H, Tosha T, Minagawa Y, Shimooki O, Abe T (2017) Clinical evaluation of complete solo surgery with the “ViKY®” robotic laparoscope manipulator. Surg Endosc 31:981–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 28:164–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ohmura Y, Nakagawa M, Suzuki H, Kotani K, Teramoto A (2018) Feasibility and usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist) in laparoscopic surgery. Visc Med 34:37–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hellinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Ota D (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group, Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC, Kuhry E, Jeekel J, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy A, Bonjer HJ (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arezzo A, Schurr MO, Braun A, Buess GF (2005) Experimental assessment of a new mechanical endoscopic solosurgery system: endofreeze. Surg Endosc 19:581–588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee YS, Jeon HG, Lee SR, Jeong WJ, Yang SC, Han WK (2010) The feasibility of solo-surgeon living donor nephrectomy: initial experience using video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery. Surg Endosc 24:2755–2759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Omote K, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Arbter K, Wei GQ, Siewert JR, Hirzinger G (1999) Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. Am J Surg 177:321–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tran H (2011) Robotic single-port hernia surgery. JSLS 15:309–314

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bann S, Khan M, Hernandez J, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Rockall T, Darzi A (2003) Robotics in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 196:784–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang SY, Roh KH, Kim YN, Cho M, Lim SH, Son T, Hyung WJ, Kim HI (2017) Surgical outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1770–1777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18:816–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 318:1569–1580

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wijsman PJM, Broeders IAMJ, Brenkman HJ, Szold A, Forgione A, Schreuder HWR, Consten ECJ, Draaisma WA, Verheijen PM, Ruurda JP, Kaufman Y (2017) First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5957-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mizuno Y, Narimatsu H, Kodama Y, Matsumura T, Kami M (2014) Mid-career changes in the occupation or specialty among general surgeons, from youth to middle age, have accelerated the shortage of general surgeons in Japan. Surg Today 44:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen YC, Shih CL, Wu CH, Chiu CH (2014) Exploring factors that have caused a decrease in surgical manpower in Taiwan. Surg Innov 21:520–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Deedar-Ali-Khawaja R, Khan SM (2010) Trends of surgical career selection among medical students and graduates: a global perspective. J Surg Educ 67:237–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Marschall JG, Karimuddin AA (2003) Decline in popularity of general surgery as a career choice in North America: review of postgraduate residency training selection in Canada, 1996–2001. World J Surg 27:249–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cancer Treatment Support Center, Okayama City Hospital, 1-20-3 Kitanagase-omotemachi, Kita-ku, Okayama, Okayama, 700-8557, Japan

    Yasushi Ohmura

  2. Department of Surgery, Okayama City Hospital, 1-20-3 Kitanagase-omotemachi, Kita-ku, Okayama, Okayama, 700-8557, Japan

    Yasushi Ohmura & Atsushi Teramoto

  3. Department of Surgery, Yakage Hospital, 2695 Yakage, Yakage-chou, Oda, Okayama, 714-1201, Japan

    Hiromitsu Suzuki

  4. Department of Surgery, Kasaoka Daiichi Hospital, 1945 Yokoshima, Kasaoka, Okayama, 714-0043, Japan

    Kazutoshi Kotani

Authors
  1. Yasushi Ohmura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiromitsu Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kazutoshi Kotani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Atsushi Teramoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasushi Ohmura.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Drs. Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki, Kazutoshi Kotani, and Atsushi Teramoto have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ohmura, Y., Suzuki, H., Kotani, K. et al. Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 33, 2206–2216 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6506-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6506-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation