Page 7 - WALS Journal

Comparison of PMAT Camera Holder with Human Camera Holder

human surgical assistant during urological laparoscopic surgery. the movements of his instrumentation during laparoscopic
They observed that camera positioning was significantly steadier surgery.
with fewer inadvertent movements when under robotic rather
than human control. They found no significant difference in CONCLUSION
the operative times during dissections using the robot or human The PMAT is an intuitive, effective and easy to use device for
11
assistant, however. Begin et al, defined the motions of the holding camera during simple laparoscopic procedures like
human camera operator and expressed them mathematically by laparoscopic appendicectomy, ovarian cystectomy and
use of a spherical displacement model. They then applied this sterilization. It can replace the human camera operator where
to a revolving robotic arm with six degrees of freedom in surgeon can himself maintain co-axial alignment. PMAT reduces
conjunction an automated camera in the performance of the constraint of requiring an experienced camera driver for
cholecystectomy and other procedures in animal models. Turner optimum visualization during laparoscopic procedures. Further
compared the cost-effectiveness of using a robotic assistant large scale feasibility studies to accept it as a useful tool for
instead of a human assistant in a series of 12 cases of solo every surgeon are warranted.
surgery in laparoscopic bladder neck suspension. He concluded
that the cost of the robotic arm was less than that of human REFERENCES
systems and that the former was a cost-effective means of
11
performing the procedure. Having discovered that non- 1. Novitsky YW, Litwin DEM, Callery MP. The net immunologic
human-controlled camera devices were economically and advantage of laparoscopic surgery Surgical Endoscopy Volume
technically feasible, several groups sought to compare the 18, Number 10 / October, 2004.
different devices. Robotic arm outperformed human camera 2. Stocchi L, Nelson H, Young-Fadok T M, Larson D R, Ilstrup D M.
holders and improved efficiency and cost savings. The current Safety and advantages of laparoscopics open colectomy in the
elderly. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2003;43; 3.
price of the AESOP (Robotic camera operator is $100,000 US 3. Jaspers, Joris E. Breedveld N, Paul, Herder, Just L, Grimbergen,
dollars). It is not possible for every surgeon to use robotic Cornelis A. Camera and Instrument Holders and Their Clinical
camera operator due to the cost. Keeping in mind all these Value in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Surgical Laparoscopy,
constrain to manipulate the laparoscope along with the visual Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 2004;14(3):145-152.
perception, we propose a mechatronic assistant with three 4. Sejal S Quayle, Collyer W, Vanlangendonck R, Jaime Landman.
degrees of freedom. This mechatronic device is made of Comparison of a Novel Endoscope Holder and Traditional
Camera Assistant for Laparoscopic Simple. Nephrectomy in a
aluminum and weighs only 2.5 kg, including laparoscope and Porcine Model. Journal of Endourology, 19, 2005;2:218 -20.
camera. It would be very cost effective and performance-wise 5. Proske JM, Dagher I, Franco D. Comparative study of human
similar to that of an AESOP device. These costs when balanced and robotic camera control in laparoscopic biliary and colon
against use of man power and cost per hour of employing a surgery. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical
human camera driver points in favor of the non-human- Techniques-part A 2004;14(6):345-48.
controlled camera devices from a strictly health economics point 6. Buess GF, Arezzo A, Schurr MO, Ulmer F, H de Pescador,
of view. One of the big advantage with PMAT is complete Gumb L, Testa T, Nobman C. A new remote-controlled
endoscope positioning system for endoscopic solo surgery. The
autonomy of the surgeon to obtain the desired optimum operator FIPS endoarm. Surg Endosc 2000;14(4):395-99.
view without relying on the experience and skill of his assistant. 7. Aiono S, Gilbert JM, Soin B, Finlay PA, Gordan A. Controlled
The disadvantages of the PMAT are that it cannot be used trial of the introduction of arobotic camera assistant (EndoAssist)
where surgeons want to operate in wide area and in the cases for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Surg Endosc 2002;16(9):
where co-axial alignment cannot be maintained during whole 1267-70.
procedure. It is good for fixed and small target of dissection, 8. Nebot PB, Jain Y, Haylett K, Stone R, McCloy R. Comparison
where camera can be fixed between the working instrument and of Task Performance of the Camera-Holder Robots EndoAssist
and Aesop Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous
where the co-axial alignment can be maintained throughout the Techniques 2003;13(5):334-38.
procedure. Use of the finger-operated electronic switch 9. Minor R. Muñoz J. Nieto R. Ondorica. Postural Mechatronic
sometimes results in the need to take surgeons eye off the Assistant for Laparoscopic Training , Minimally Invasive
operative field to search for the switch which will move camera therapy 2005;14(6):357-59.
in or out. It is also necessary for the surgeon to learn to use the 10. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW. Comparison
PMAT, but proficiency in the execution of the camera of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol
154(6):2134–2136. Erratum in: J Urol 1997 158(4):1530;1995.
movements is easily acquired in a few minutes. There was slight 11. Begin E, Gagner M, Hurteau R, de Santis S, Pomp A. A robotic
neck or shoulder discomfort. Even after these minor problems camera for laparoscopic surgery: conception and experimental
in our study the PMAT enabled the surgeon to intuitively results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5(1):6–11 12; 1995. Turner DJ
control his field of laparoscopic vision without compromising (1996) Solo.

5