World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2011 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

The Camera-holding Robotic Device in Laparoscopy Surgery

Muhammad Nurhadi Rahman

Citation Information : Rahman MN. The Camera-holding Robotic Device in Laparoscopy Surgery. World J Lap Surg 2011; 4 (3):132-135.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10007-1130

Published Online: 01-12-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background

The inconvenience of laparoscopic operations lies mainly in the difficulties in mutual understanding between the surgeon and the camera assistant who maneuvers the laparoscope according to the surgeon's instructions. Another problem arises when the operation has to be performed for many hours. In this case, the camera image tends to become unsteady due to fatigue of the camera assistant. The self camera-control by the surgeon gives more stability of the laparoscopic image. A robotic camera assistant, directly under surgeon's control, can help the surgeon control the view better. This review is limited only in the robotic camera holder to replace the assistant camera holder in laparoscopy surgery.

Materials and methods

Several types of the camera-holding robotic devices, such as the AESOP, EndoAssist, PMAT and PARAMIS were reviewed respectively.

Discussion

Most of the camera-holding robotic devices have the advantages, such as elimination of the fatigue of the assistant who holds the camera, elimination of fine motor tremor and small inaccurate movements, delivery of a steady and tremor-free image, nondependency on camera operator, reduced cost of surgery and reduced number of highly skilled staff. Some of them have additional advantages and disadvantages depend on their uniqueness.

Conclusion

There is no fundamental difference between the operation performed with and without the devices, but the machines do contribute to certain aspects of the operations and may help to overcome some of the difficulties encountered in these complex laparoscopy procedures. Unavailability and variability in quality of human camera-holders should not be an obstacle to performing satisfactory laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, some form of standardization of assistance is required and laparoscope-holding systems are a first step in this direction.


PDF Share
  1. A consensus document on robotic surgery 2007, cited from http://www.sages.org/publication/id/ROBOT/
  2. Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Access Surg Jan 2009;5(1):1-7.
  3. Using a laparoscope manipulator (LAPMAN) in laparoscopic gynecological surgery, 1998, cited from http://www.surgicaltechnology.com/17-187-GY-Abstract.html
  4. Comparison of PMAT camera holder with human camera control. World Journal of Laparoscopy Surgery May-Aug 2008;1(2):1-5.
  5. Robotic camera assistant for laparoscopic surgery, cited from http://www.scribd.com/doc/45776626/ Robotic-Camera-Assistant.
  6. The EndoAssist robotic camera holder as an aid to the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl July 2009;91(5):389-93.
  7. Primer of robotic and telerobotic surgery. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2004;35.
  8. PARAMIS parallel robot for laparoscopic surgery. ChirurgiaSep 2010;105(5):677-83.
  9. History, evolution and application of robotic surgery in urology. Arch Es Urol 2007;60(4):335-41.
  10. Comparison of task performance of the cameraholder robots EndoAssist and AESOP Oct2003;13(5):334-38.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.