Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Image-based laparoscopic camera steering versus conventional steering: a comparison study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last 2 decades, multiple robotic camera holders have been developed to improve camera steering during laparoscopic surgery. A new image-based steering method has been developed for more intuitive camera control. In this article, the efficiency and user experience of image-based steering were compared to conventional steering methods. Four participants (two senior surgical registrars, one junior surgical registrar and a technical medicine student) were enrolled in this study. All participants performed multiple camera steering exercises with three different steering modalities in randomized order: image-based, joystick and manual camera steering. Steering of the laparoscope was evaluated by execution time and with the SMEQ and NASA-TLX questionnaires to analyze user experience. A total of 267 camera steering exercises were performed. The analyzed data showed a significantly shorter execution time for manual camera steering compared to image-based robotic steering (p = 0.001) and joystick robotic steering (p = 0.001). The participants reported the lowest user experience with joystick camera steering. The results of the questionnaires showed no significant difference in all subscales of user experience for image-based and manual camera steering. Manual camera steering resulted in significantly higher perceived physiological workload scores (M = 30.0, IQR = 27.5) compared to image-based (M = 10, IQR = 5.0) and joystick camera steering (M = 15.0, IQR = 10.0). Manual control of the laparoscope remains the fastest steering method at the expense of a high physical workload. Using image-based camera steering is a viable alternative to the current joystick control of robotic camera holders, as it improves speed and user experience. The study results suggest that optimisation of robotic camera steering with algorithms based on image analysis is a promising technology.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tukanova K, Markar SR, Jamel S et al (2020) An international comparison of the utilisation of and outcomes from minimal access surgery for the treatment of common abdominal surgical emergencies. Surg Endosc 34:2012–2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06980-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaschinski T, Mosch CG, Eikermann M et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD001546

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moloo H, Haggar F, Coyle D et al (2010) Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006585.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vennix S, Pelzers L, Bouvy N et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD005200. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005200.pub3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Best LMJ, Mughal M, Gurusamy KS (2016) Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD011389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abraha I, Binda GA, Montedori A et al (2017) Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev 11:CD009277

    Google Scholar 

  7. Limb C, Rockall T (2020) Principles of laparoscopic surgery. Surg (United Kingdom) 38:161–171

    Google Scholar 

  8. Graafland M, Bok K, Schreuder HWR, Schijven MP (2014) A multicenter prospective cohort study on camera navigation training for key user groups in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Innov 21:312–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350613505714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Siddaiah-Subramanya M, Tiang K, Nyandowe M (2017) A new era of minimally invasive surgery: progress and development of major technical innovations in general surgery over the last decade. Surg J 03:e163–e166. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Huettl F, Lang H, Paschold M et al (2020) Rating of camera navigation skills in colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 35:1111–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03543-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huber T, Paschold M, Schneble F et al (2018) Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navigation skills: the SALAS score. Surg Endosc 32:4980–4984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6260-7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Voorhorst F, Meijer D, Overbeeke C, Smets G (1998) Depth perception in laparoscopy through perception-action coupling. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 7:325–334. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645709809152876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Amin MSA, Aydin A, Abbud N et al (2020) Evaluation of a remote-controlled laparoscopic camera holder for basic laparoscopic skills acquisition: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07899-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaspers JEN, Breedveld P, Herder JL, Grimbergen CA (2004) Camera and instrument holders and their clinical value in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 14:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arezzo A, Testa T, Ulmer F et al (2000) Sistemi di posizionamento per Solo chirurgia endoscopica. Minerva Chir 55:635–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154:2134–2136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66715-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wijsman PJM, Molenaar L, Van’t Hullenaar CDP et al (2019) Ergonomics in handheld and robot-assisted camera control: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06678-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. van’t Hullenaar CDP, Bos P, Broeders IAMJ (2019) Ergonomic assessment of the first assistant during robot-assisted surgery. J Robot Surg 13:283–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0851-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wijsman PJM, Broeders IAMJ, Brenkman HJ et al (2018) First experience with THE AUTOLAPTM SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device. Surg Endosc 32:2560–2566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5957-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Voros S, Long JA, Cinquin P (2006) Automatic localization of laparoscopic instruments for the visual servoing of an endoscopic camera holder. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2006;9(Pt 1):535–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/11866565_66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Voros S, Long J-A, Cinquin P (2007) Automatic detection of instruments in laparoscopic images: a first step towards high-level command of robotic endoscopic holders. Int J Rob Res 26:1173–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364907083395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zahiri M, Nelson CA, Gonzalo Garay-Romero R, Oleynikov D (2016) Integration of automated camera steering for robotic single-site surgery. Mechanisms and machine science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 153–160

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bouget D, Allan M, Stoyanov D, Jannin P (2017) Vision-based and marker-less surgical tool detection and tracking: a review of the literature. Med Image Anal 35:633–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang C, Zhao Z, Hu S (2020) Image-based laparoscopic tool detection and tracking using convolutional neural networks: a review of the literature. Comput Assist Surg 25:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pastrana-Vidal RR, Gicquel JC, Colomes C, Cherifi H (2004) Sporadic frame dropping impact on quality perception. Hum Vis Electron Imaging IX 5292:182

    Google Scholar 

  27. Frame rate vs frame time—the CGVR lab. https://cgvr.cs.ut.ee/wp/index.php/frame-rate-vs-frame-time/. Accessed 25 Aug 2021

  28. Pratomo AH, Zakaria MS, Prabuwono AS, Liong CY (2013) Camera calibration: transformation real-world coordinates into camera coordinates using neural network. Communications in computer and information science. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 345–360

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Mr. Michael Orrell from Oxford University Hospitals. We would like to thank him for his advice and comments relating to the English language and grammar used in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

    Paul J. M. Wijsman, Lennert Molenaar, Frank J. Voskens & Ivo A. M. J. Broeders

  2. Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

    Paul J. M. Wijsman

  3. Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Paul J. M. Wijsman, Frank J. Voskens, Cas D. P. van’t Hullenaar & Ivo A. M. J. Broeders

  4. Magnetic Detection and Imaging, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Lennert Molenaar

  5. Department of Surgery, Van Weel Bethesda Hospital, Dirksland, The Netherlands

    Cas D. P. van’t Hullenaar

Authors
  1. Paul J. M. Wijsman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lennert Molenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank J. Voskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cas D. P. van’t Hullenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivo A. M. J. Broeders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivo A. M. J. Broeders.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

P.J.M. Wijsman was a Clinical Field Engineer of Medical Surgery Technologies ltd (MST) from 2016 to 2018. I.A.M.J. Broeders is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and Intuitive Surgical. F.J. Voskens, L. Molenaar and C.D.P. van’t Hullenaar have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MP4 56686 KB)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 8 KB)

Supplementary file3 (PDF 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wijsman, P.J.M., Molenaar, L., Voskens, F.J. et al. Image-based laparoscopic camera steering versus conventional steering: a comparison study. J Robotic Surg 16, 1157–1163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01342-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01342-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation