World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2008 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of PMAT Camera Holder with Human Camera Holder

D Lorias, A Minor

Citation Information : Lorias D, Minor A. Comparison of PMAT Camera Holder with Human Camera Holder. World J Lap Surg 2008; 1 (2):1-5.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10007-1049

Published Online: 01-08-2010

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).



During minimal access surgery an assistant is controlling the laparoscope and surgeon should be free to manipulate instruments. Although the advantages of laparoscopic surgery are well documented, one disadvantage is that, for optimum performance, an experienced camera driver is required who can provide the necessary views for the operating surgeon. There are many drawbacks in human camera operator especially if they are not trained. The self camera-control by the surgeon gives more stability of the laparoscopic image. The aim of this study was to compare PMAT camera holder device with traditional assistant-driven laparoscopic camera control.

Materials and Methods

Laparoscopic Appendicectomy, Ovarian Cystectomy and Laparoscopic sterilization were performed. On 14 patients, the operating surgeon used the “PMAT” and performed the surgery without a laparoscopic camera assistant. On the other group of 14 patients, an experienced camera operator was responsible for control of the laparoscopic field of vision in the traditional manner. The time required for surgery was documented.


The mean operative times for PMAT and camera personassisted appendicectomy was 45 minutes and 40 minutes respectively. For ovarian cystectomy 45 and 50 minutes and for laparoscopic sterilization it was 15 and 10 minutes. There were no differences in outcome of surgery or blood loss in the two groups. The operative surgeon perceived some increase in shoulder and neck pain with use of the PMAT scope holder.


This PMAT device provides a means for the operative surgeon to safely perform simple laparoscopic procedures alone without significantly increasing operative time or morbidity.

PDF Share
  1. The net immunologic advantage of laparoscopic surgery Surgical Endoscopy Volume 18, Number 10/October, 2004.
  2. Safety and advantages of laparoscopics open colectomy in the elderly. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2003;43;3.
  3. Breedveld N, Paul, Herder, Just L, Grimbergen, Cornelis A. Camera and Instrument Holders and Their Clinical Value in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 2004;14(3):145-152.
  4. Comparison of a Novel Endoscope Holder and Traditional Camera Assistant for Laparoscopic Simple. Nephrectomy in a Porcine Model. Journal of Endourology, 19, 2005;2:218-20.
  5. Comparative study of human and robotic camera control in laparoscopic biliary and colon surgery. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques-part A 2004;14(6):345-48.
  6. A new remote-controlled endoscope positioning system for endoscopic solo surgery. The FIPS endoarm. Surg Endosc 2000;14(4):395-99.
  7. Controlled trial of the introduction of arobotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Surg Endosc 2002;16(9):1267-70.
  8. Comparison of Task Performance of the Camera-Holder Robots Endo Assist and Aesop Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 2003;13(5):334-38.
  9. Muñoz J. Nieto R. Ondorica. Postural Mechatronic Assistant for Laparoscopic Training, Minimally Invasive therapy 2005;14(6):357-59.
  10. Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154(6):2134–2136. Erratum in: J Urol 1997 158(4):1530;1995.
  11. A robotic camera for laparoscopic surgery: conception and experimental results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5(1):6-1112; 1995. Turner DJ (1996) Solo.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.