Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®): retrospective comparative study with human assistant.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Blood Loss, Surgical
/ statistics & numerical data
Equipment Design
Female
Hernia, Inguinal
/ surgery
Herniorrhaphy
/ instrumentation
Humans
Laparoscopy
/ instrumentation
Male
Middle Aged
Operative Time
Propensity Score
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures
/ instrumentation
Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair
Robotic scope holder
Solo-surgery
Soloassist
Journal
Langenbeck's archives of surgery
ISSN: 1435-2451
Titre abrégé: Langenbecks Arch Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9808285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
05
03
2019
accepted:
13
05
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
11
1
2020
entrez:
27
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Among 182 inguinal hernia patients treated by laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair, 82 cases were completed with a human scope assistant, while Soloassist was used in 100 cases. We retrospectively compared perioperative results of Soloassist group and human scope assistant group. In 139 unilateral cases, we also used logistic regression of perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias. All operations with Soloassist were carried out laparoscopically as solo-surgery without any system-specific complications. A statistically significant decrease in operation time was observed in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group (93.6 vs 85.9 min, p = 0.05). There was no prolongation of preoperative time or difference in the amount of intraoperative blood loss. Operation time was also significantly shorter in Soloassist group, when analyzing unilateral cases (85.5 vs 76.3 min, p = 0.02) and bilateral cases (126.9 vs 111.8 min, p = 0.01), independently. However, after propensity score matching in unilateral cases, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (83.8 vs 77.2 min, p = 0.23). The feasibility of Soloassist in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was demonstrated with no adverse device-related events. All surgeries could be completed as solo-surgery, while no additional time for preoperative setting was required. The mean operation time tends to be shorter in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group. Soloassist could be an effective device in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31129765
doi: 10.1007/s00423-019-01793-y
pii: 10.1007/s00423-019-01793-y
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
495-503Références
Am J Surg. 1999 Apr;177(4):321-4
pubmed: 10326852
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2000 Jun;10(3):163-7
pubmed: 10872979
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002 Feb;12(1):46-51
pubmed: 12008762
Surg Endosc. 2002 Sep;16(9):1267-70
pubmed: 12235507
World J Surg. 2003 Mar;27(3):249-52
pubmed: 12607045
Comput Aided Surg. 2003;8(1):24-9
pubmed: 14708755
Surg Endosc. 2004 Aug;18(8):1216-23
pubmed: 15457381
Surg Endosc. 2005 Apr;19(4):581-8
pubmed: 15759198
Surg Endosc. 2010 Nov;24(11):2755-9
pubmed: 20383533
JSLS. 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):309-14
pubmed: 21985715
Surg Today. 2014 Apr;44(4):601-6
pubmed: 23712727
Surg Endosc. 2014 Jan;28(1):164-70
pubmed: 23990155
Surg Endosc. 2017 Feb;31(2):981-986
pubmed: 27369284
Visc Med. 2018 Feb;34(1):37-44
pubmed: 29594168
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jul;33(7):2206-2216
pubmed: 30334160
Lancet. 1994 Mar 5;343(8897):596-7
pubmed: 7906340
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1997;211(4):317-25
pubmed: 9330543