Load evaluation of the da Vinci surgical system for transoral robotic surgery
Tóm tắt
Transoral robotic surgery, performed with the da Vinci surgical system (da Vinci), is a surgical approach for benign and malignant lesions of the oral cavity and laryngopharynx. It provides several unique advantages, which include a 3-dimensional magnified view and ability to see and work around curves or angles. However, the current da Vinci surgical system does not provide haptic feedback. This is problematic because the potential risks specific to the transoral use of the da Vinci include tooth injury, mucosal laceration, ocular injury and mandibular fracture. To assess the potential for intraoperative injuries, we measured the load of the endoscope and the instrument of the da Vinci Si surgical system. We pressed the endoscope and instrument of the da Vinci Si against Load cell six times each and measured the dynamic load and the time-to-maximum load. We also struck the da Vinci Si endoscope and instrument against the Load cell six times each and measured the impact load. The maximum dynamic load was 7.27 ± 1.31 kg for the endoscope and 1.90 ± 0.72 for the instrument. The corresponding time-to-maximum loads were 1.72 ± 0.22 and 1.29 ± 0.34 s, but the impact loads were significantly lower than the dynamic load. It remains possible that a major load is exerted on adjacent structures by continuous contact with the endoscope and instrument of da Vinci Si. However, there is a minor delay in reaching the maximum load. Careful monitoring by an on-site assistant may, therefore, help prevent contiguous injury.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Yuh B, Artibani W, Heidenreich A et al (2014) The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 65:918–927
Genden EM, Desai S, Sung CK (2009) Transoral robotic surgery for the management of head and neck cancer: a preliminary experience. Head Neck 31:283–289
Iseli TA, Kulbersh BD, Iseli CE et al (2009) Functional outcomes after transoral robotic surgery for head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141:166–171
Moore EJ, Olsen KD, Kasperbauer JL (2009) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of feasibility and functional outcomes. Laryngoscope 119:2156–2164
Boudreaux BA, Rosenthal EL, Magnuson JS et al (2009) Robot-assisted surgery for upper aerodigestive tract neoplasms. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135:397–401
Kang SW, Lee SC, Lee KY et al (2009) Robotic thyroid surgery using a gasless, transaxillary approach and the da Vinci system: the operative out comes of 338 consecutive patients. Surgery 146:1048–1055
Lewis CM, Chung WY, Holsinger C (2010) Feasibility and surgical approach of transaxillary robotic thyroidectomy without CO2 insufflation. Head Neck 32:121–126
Tae K, Ji YB, Lee SH et al (2011) Robotic thyroidectomy by a gasless unilateral axillo-breast or axillary approach: our early experiences. Surg Endosc 25(1):221–228
Weinstein GS, O`Malley BW, Desai SC et al (2009) Transoral robotic surgery: does the ends justify the means? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 17:126–131
Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Snyder W et al (2007) Transoral robotic surgery: radical tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:1220–1226
Weinstein GS, O`Malley BW, Hockstein NG (2005) Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic laryngectomy in a canine model. Laryngoscope 115:1315–1319
O`Malley BW, Weinstein G (2007) Robotic anterior and midline skull base surgery: preclinical investigations. Int J Robotic Oncol Biol Phys 69:125–128
Hanna EY, Holsinger C, DeMonte F et al (2007) Robotic endoscopic surgery of the skull base: a novel surgical approach. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:1209–1214
Hockstein NG, O’Malley BW, Weinstein GS et al (2006) Assessment of intraoperative safety in transoral robotic surgery. Laryngoscope 116:165–168
Chia SH, Gross ND, Richmon JD (2013) Surgeon experience and complications with transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149(6):885–892