Premium
Comparison of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder with human assistants during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy
Author(s) -
Stolzenburg JensUwe,
Franz Toni,
Kallidonis Panagiotis,
Minh Do,
Dietel Anja,
Hicks James,
Nicolaus Martin,
AlAown Abdulrahman,
Liatsikos Evangelos
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09656.x
Subject(s) - prostatectomy , medicine , surgery , computer science , artificial intelligence , prostate cancer , cancer
Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? The use of robotic arms for instrument and camera manipulation has been proposed for more than a decade. The current study provides a direct comparison of robotic camera movement to the conventional human camera holding assistance in real operative room setting. OBJECTIVE • To assess, in a prospective randomized study, the efficiency of the FreeHand® (Prosurgics Ltd, Bracknell, UK) compared to manual camera control during the performance of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE). PATIENTS AND METHODS • Three surgeons performed 50 EERPE for localized prostate cancer. In group A ( n = 25), procedures were performed with manual control of the camera by the assistant, whereas group B ( n = 25) patients were treated with the assistance of the FreeHand® robotic device. • The EERPE procedure was divided into several steps. • Total operation duration, time for each surgical step, number of camera movements, number of movement errors, number of times the lens was cleaned, blood loss and margin status were compared. RESULTS • No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of patient age, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen level, Gleason score, positive cores and prostate volume. • The average operation duration required for the performance of each step did not differ significantly between the two groups. • Significant differences in favour of the FreeHand® camera holder were observed in case of horizontal and zooming camera movement, camera cleaning and camera errors. • Vertical camera movements were performed significantly faster by the human assistant compared to the robotic camera holder. • The average total operation duration was similar for both groups. • Positive surgical margins were detected in one patient in each group (4% of the patients). CONCLUSIONS • A comparison of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder with human camera control during EERPE showed a similar time requirement for the performance of each step of the procedure. • The robotic system provided accurate and fast movements of the camera without compromising the outcome of the procedure.