Docking of the da Vinci Si Surgical System® with single-site technology

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 12-16

  Iranmanesh, Pouya ^a   Morel, Philippe ^a   Buchs, Nicolas C ^a   Pugin, François ^a   Volonte, Francesco ^a   Kreaden, Usha Seshadri ^a   Hagen, Monika E ^a  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cholecystectomy; Da Vinci; Docking; Robotic; Single incision; Single site

Indexed keywords

NASA; TRANSPLANTATION (SURGICAL);

CHOLECYSTECTOMY; DA VINCI; DOCKING; DOCKING PROCESS; LOAD PARAMETERS; OPERATING TIME; ROBOTICS SURGERY; SINGLE INCISION; SINGLE SITES; SURGICAL SYSTEMS;

ROBOTIC SURGERY;

ARTICLE; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; HUMAN; LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SINGLE SITE SURGERY; OPERATION DURATION; PERFORMANCE; PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTICS; SURGEON;

EID: 84874988111     PISSN: 14785951     EISSN: 1478596X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1481     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Meeks JJ, Eastham JA. Robotic prostatectomy: the rise of the machines or judgement day. Eur Urol 2012; 61(4): 686-687.
2. Lu D, Liu Z, Shi G, et al. Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 1: CD008640.
3. Matthews CA. The promise of robotics in urogynecology. Int Urogynecol J 2012; 23(9): 1177-1178.
4. Jougon J. New developments in surgical treatment of thyroid carcinoma in 2011. Med Nucl 2012; 36(1): 36-38.
5. Hompes R, Rauh SM, Hagen ME, et al. Preclinical cadaveric study of transanal endoscopic da Vinci® surgery. Br J Surg 2012; 99(8): 1144-1148.
6. Hagen ME, Inan I, Pugin F, et al. [The da Vinci surgical system in digestive surgery]. Rev Med Suisse 2007; 3: 1622-1626 [in French].
7. Wirth GJ, Hauser J, Caviezel A, et al. [Robot-assisted surgery in urology]. Urologe A 2008; 47(8): 960-963 [in German].
8. Zietman A, Ibbott G. A clinical approach to technology assessment: how do we and how should we choose the right treatment? Semin Radiat Oncol 2012; 22(1): 11-17.
9. Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(8): 783-791.
10. Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, et al. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 2012; 187(4): 1392-1398.
11. Vidovszky TJ, Smith W, Ghosh J, et al. Robotic cholecystectomy: learning curve, advantages, and limitations. J Surg Res 2006; 136(2): 172-178.
12. Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Wagner OJ, et al. Set-up and docking of the da Vinci surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot 2010; 6(1): 57-60.
13. Morel P, Pugin F, Bucher P, et al. Robotic single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Robot Surg 2012; 6(3): 273-274.
14. Wren SM, Curet MJ. Single-port robotic cholecystectomy: results from a first human use clinical study of the new da Vinci single-site surgical platform. Arch Surg 2011; 146(10): 1122-1127.
15. Morel P, Hagen ME, Bucher P, et al. Robotic single-port cholecystectomy using a new platform: initial clinical experience. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15(12): 2182-2186.
16. Spinoglio G, Lenti LM, Maglione V, et al. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC): comparison of learning curves. First European experience. Surg Endosc 2012; 26(6): 1648-1655.
17. Konstantinidis KM, Hirides P, Hirides S, et al. Cholecystectomy using a novel Single-Site® robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 2012; 26(9): 2687-2694.
18. Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, et al. Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthcare 2010; 5(5): 267-271.
19. Hoonakker P, Carayon P, Gurses A, et al. Measuring workload of ICU nurses with a questionnaire survey: the NASA task load index (TLX). IIE Trans Healthcare Syst Eng 2011; 1(2): 131-143.
20. Montero PN, Acker CE, Heniford BT, et al. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is associated with poorer performance and increased surgeon workload compared with standard laparoscopy. Am Surg 2011; 77(1): 73-77.
21. Zheng B, Jiang X, Tien G, et al. Workload assessment of surgeons: correlation between NASA TLX and blinks. Surg Endosc 2012; 26(10): 2746-2750.
22. Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G, et al. Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 2012; 22(1): 52-61.