Efficiency in image-guided robotic and conventional camera steering: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Robotic camera steering systems have been developed to facilitate endoscopic surgery. In this study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare conventional human camera control with the AutoLap™ robotic camera holder in terms of efficiency and user experience when performing routine laparoscopic procedures. Novelty of this system relates to the steering method, which is image based. METHODS: Patients undergoing an elective laparoscopic hemicolectomy, sigmoid resection, fundoplication and cholecystectomy between September 2016 and January 2018 were included. Stratified block randomization was used for group allocation. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of robotic and human camera control, measured with surgical team size and total operating time. Secondary outcome parameters were number of cleaning moments of the laparoscope and the post-study system usability questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were randomized to have robotic (50) versus human (50) camera control. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. In the robotic group, 49/50 (98%) of procedures were carried out without human camera control, reducing the surgical team size from four to three individuals. The median total operative time (60.0 versus 53.0 min, robotic vs. control) was not significantly different, p = 0.122. The questionnaire showed a positive user satisfaction and easy control of the robotic camera holder. CONCLUSION: Image-based robotic camera control can reduce surgical team size and does not result in significant difference in operative time compared to human camera control. Moreover, robotic image-guided camera control was associated with positive user experience.

Endoscopic surgery suturing techniques: a randomized study on learning.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons have widely adopted endoscopic suturing techniques using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the more advanced robotic systems. The FlexDex is a novel articulating laparoscopic needle driver providing enhanced dexterity in laparoscopic surgery. This study evaluates and compares the learning curve of endoscopic suturing with conventional laparoscopy, the FlexDex and robotic suturing in novices. METHODS: Participants performed a minimal invasive suturing task in three different ways in a randomized order: with a conventional laparoscopic needle driver, using the FlexDex needle driver and third, using the Da Vinci Si surgical system. Primary outcome was suturing task time. Secondary outcome parameters were assessment of suturing quality and workload perception. RESULTS: A total of 10 novice participants were included and completed a total of 300 sessions. Median (IQR) suturing time of the first 5 sessions was 231 s (188-291) in the laparoscopic group versus 378 s (282-471) in the FlexDex group versus 189 s (160-247) in the DaVinci Si group. The last 5 sessions showed significant reduction of median suturing time of 143 s (120-190), 232 s (180-265) and 172 s (134-199) respectively. Analysis identified that the learning curve for the laparoscopic needle driver and Da Vinci Si was reached in 5 sessions, compared to 8 sessions for the Flexdex. The laparoscopic needle driver and Da Vinci Si showed a significant shorter median suturing time compared to the FlexDex (p = 0.00). The FlexDex quality assessment scores were significantly lower compared to the laparoscopic (p = 0.00) and robotic (p = 0.00) scores and perceived workload remains high for the FlexDex users. CONCLUSIONS: Ex vivo endoscopic suturing with the FlexDex demonstrated a prolonged learning curve compared to laparoscopic and robotic suturing. The learning curve of the FlexDex is fundamentally different from conventional laparoscopic and robotic instruments. This study provides further insights in the implementation and training of endoscopic suturing techniques.