The AESOP robot system in laparoscopic surgery: increased risk or advantage for surgeon and patient? Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in comparison with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study.
The aim of this study was to examine the advantages and risks of the Automated Endoscopic System for Optical Positioning (AESOP) 3000 robot system during uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomies or laparoscopic hernioplasty.
                In a randomized study, we examined two groups of 120 patients each with the diagnosis cholecystolithiasis respectively the unilateral inguinal hernia. We worked with the AESOP 3000, a robotic arm system that is voice-controlled by the surgeon. The subjective and objective comfort of the surgeon as well as the course and length of the operation were measured.
                The robot-assisted operations required significantly longer preparation and operation times. With regard to the necessary commands and manual camera corrections, the assistant group was favored. The same was true for the subjective evaluation of the surgical course by the surgeon.
                Our study showed that the use of AESOP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and hernioplasty is possible in 94% of all cases. The surgeon must accept a definite loss of comfort as well as a certain loss of time against the advantage of saving on personnel. The robotic surgical system overcomes many technological obstacles of conventional laparoscopic surgery, and possesses enormous clinical applied potential. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                Forty patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A (n=20) underwent Zeus robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and patients in group B (n=20) received conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The parameters on operative field, operative time, the number of actions, the rate of operative errors and minimal trauma were evaluated and compared between the two groups.
                The number of clearing camera (1.1+/-1.0 times) and the time of adjusting the operative field (2.2+/-0.7 minutes) in group A were significantly less than those (4.5+/-1.5 times) and (7.5+/-1.2 minutes) in group B. The number of dissection actions (337+/-86 times) and the rate of operative errors (10%) in group A were less than those (389+/-94 times), (25%) in group B. The total operation time (104.9+/-20.5 minutes) and setup time (29.5+/-9.8 minutes) in group A were significantly longer than those (78.6+/-17.1 minutes), (12.6+/-2.5 minutes) in group B. Blood loss and postoperative hospitalization were similar. No postoperative complications occurred in both groups, and open cholecystectomy was performed in each group.
                Zeus robot-assisted cholecystectomy inherits the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. The Zeus robotic surgical system is better than conventional laparoscopic technique in controlling the operative field and can be manipulated precisely and stably though it requires more operative time. The role of the human camera holder during laparoscopic surgery keeps valuable personnel from other duties. EndoAssist is a robotic camera-holding device controlled by the operator's head movements. This study assesses its introduction into clinical practice.
                Ninety-three patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to have either the robotic (40) or a human (46) assistant. Seven patients converted to open operation were excluded. Six surgeons were evaluated. Operating time and subjective assessments were recorded. Learning curves were constructed.
                The mean operating time was less using the robotic assistant (66 min) than with human assistance (74 min) (p < 0.05, two-tailed t-test). The learning curves for operating time showed that within three operations surgeons were trained in using the robot. The device was safe in use.
                The EndoAssist operating device is a significant asset in laparoscopic surgery and a suitable substitute for a human assistant. Surgeons became competent in the use of the robot within three operations. The robot offers stability and good control of the television image in laparoscopic surgery. To analyze outcomes after open small-incision surgery (minilaparotomy) and laparoscopic surgery for gallstone disease in general surgical practice.
                This study was a randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC). Both elective and acute patients were eligible for inclusion. All surgeons normally performing cholecystectomy, both trainees under supervision and consultants, operated on randomized patients. LC was a routine procedure at participating hospitals, whereas MC was introduced after a short training period. All nonrandomized cholecystectomies at participating units during the study period were also recorded to analyze the external validity of trial results. The randomization period was from March 1, 1997, to April 30, 1999.
                Of 1,705 cholecystectomies performed at participating units during the randomization period, 724 entered the trial and 362 patients were randomized to each of the procedures. The groups were well matched for age and sex, but there were fewer acute operations in the LC group than the MC group. In the LC group 264 and in the MC group 150 operations were performed by surgeons who had done more than 25 operations of that type. Median operating times were 100 and 85 minutes for LC and MC, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2 days in each group, but in a nonparametric test it was significantly shorter after LC. Median sick leave and time for return to normal recreational activities were shorter after LC than MC. Intraoperative complications were less frequent in the MC group, but there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups. There was one serious bile duct injury in each group, but no deaths.
                Operating time was longer and convalescence was smoother for LC compared with MC. Further analyses of LC versus MC are necessary regarding surgical training, surgical outcome, and health economy.
Robot assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not seem to offer any significant advantages over human assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, all trials had a high risk of systematic errors or bias (that is, risk of overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm). All trials were small, with few or no outcomes. Hence, the risk of random errors (that is, play of chance) is high. Further randomised trials with low risk of bias or random errors are needed.