Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and
Transcription
Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and
Review article Surg Endosc (2002) 16: 1389±1402 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-8283-7 Ó Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 2002 Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring Review of early clinical results G. H. Ballantyne Minimally Invasive and Telerobotic Surgery Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center, 20 Prospect Avenue, Hackensack, NJ 07601, USA Received: 12 February 2002/Accepted in ®nal form: 25 March 2002/Online publication: 29 July 2002 Abstract Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly became the standard of care for the surgical treatment of cholelithiasis, very few other abdominal or cardiac operations are currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. The inherent limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery make it dicult to perform these operations. We, and others, have attempted to use robotic technology to (a) provide a stable camera platform, (b) replace two-dimensional with three-dimensional (3-D) imaging, (c) simulate the ¯uid motions of a surgeon's wrist to overcome the motion limitations of straight laparoscopic instruments, and (d) oer the surgeon a comfortable, ergonomically optimal operating position. In this article, we review the early published clinical experience with surgical robotic and telerobotic systems and assess their current limitations. The voice-controlled AESOP robot replaces the cameraperson and facilitates the performance of solo-surgeon laparoscopic operations. AESOP provides a stable camera platform and avoids motion sickness in the op1 erative team. The telerobotic Zeus and da Vinci surgical systems permit solo surgery by a surgeon from a remote sight. These telerobots hold the camera, replace the surgeon's two hands with robotic instruments, and serve in a master±slave relationship for the surgeon. Their robotic instruments simulate the motions of the surgeon's wrist, facilitating dissection. Both telerobots use 3-D imaging to immerse the surgeon in a three-dimensional video operating ®eld. These robots also provide operating positions for the surgeon console that are ergonomically superior to those required by traditional laparoscopy. The technological advances of these telerobots now permit telepresence surgery from remote locations, even locations thousands of miles away. In addition, telepresence permits the telementoring of novice surgeons who are performing new procedures by expert surgeons in remote locations. The studies reviewed here indicate that robotics and telerobotics oer potential solutions to the inherent problems of traditional laparoscopic surgery, as well as new possibilities for telesurgery and telementoring. Nonetheless, these technologies are still in an early stage of development, and each device entails its own set of challenges and limitations for actual use in clinical settings. Key words: Robots Ð Robotic surgery Ð Telerobotic surgery Ð Telesurgery Ð Telepresence Ð Telementoring Ð Telemedicine Ð Laparoscopy Ð Laparoscopic surgery Ð AESOP Ð da Vinci Ð Zeus 2 With the advent of video laparoscopy, the staid surgical suite of the 19th century entered the computer age [1]. The magni®ed and computer-enhanced video image provided surgeons with superior exposure and visualization of the abdomen. Yet even a decade after the introduction of video laparoscopic colectomy, most gastrointestinal operations are still performed using 19th century instruments and techniques. Indeed, in the year 2000, <3% of colon resections in the United States were done laparoscopically [2]. Why have surgeons failed to embrace minimally invasive gastrointestinal, urological, and cardiothoracic surgery despite the obvious advantages to their patients? Most laparoscopic gastrointestinal operations are dicult operations to learn, master, and perform routinely. Surgeons face a long learning curve. Moreover, a number of inherent pitfalls of laparoscopy hinder the performance of advanced laparoscopic procedures. These pitfalls include: 1. An unstable camera platform 2. The limited motion (degrees of freedom) of straight laparoscopic instruments 3. Two-dimensional imaging 4. Poor ergonomics for the surgeon 1390 Since the introduction of video laparoscopic cholecystectomy, surgeons have speculated that computers, 3-D imaging, and robotics could overcome these pitfalls of laparoscopy [3, 4, 5]. In this article, we review the early published clinical experience with surgical robotic and telerobotic systems and assess their current limitations. We also brie¯y review the early experience with telepresence surgery and telementoring. Despite the paucity of documentation in the current literature, we will also address on the speci®c limitations of the currently available robotic and telerobotic surgical systems. Our aim here is to provide a perspective on the state of this emerging ®eld and to chart the directions in which it should evolve. De®nitions operative ®eld to a remote site [6, 7]. Using the telerobot to telecast their hand motions to the remote operating room, surgeons perform operations without actually seeing their patients. Telepresence enables a surgeon on an aircraft carrier, for example, to operate on a wounded soldier on the battle®eld [8]. Telementoring Telementoring uses similar technology to create a virtual classroom, or even a ``virtual university'' [9]. Telementoring permits an expert surgeon, who remains in his/her own hospital, to instruct a novice in a remote location on how to perform a new operation or use a new surgical technology. Telepresence thus provides a new strategy for the training of surgical residents [10, 11] as well as a new means of disseminating novel surgical approaches around the world [12]. Robotic surgery The ®rst robots introduced into clinical practice served as camera holders. In 1994, the FDA approved AESOP for clinical use as a robotic camera holder; more recently, it also approved a second robotic camera holder, 2 the Endoassist (Armstrong Healthcare Ltd., United Kingdom). Surgical robots are controlled directly by the 2 surgeon, who stands at the side of the operating table. Telerobotic surgery More recently, surgical robots have evolved into telerobotic surgical platforms that permit surgeons to operate on patients from remote locations using robotic instruments. The surgeon and telerobot work in a master±slave relationship. Telerobots have been speci® cally designed to overcome all four of the pitfalls of laparoscopy. They maintain a stable camera platform, use instruments that articulate at the end to simulate the movements of the surgeon's hand, use three-dimensional (3-D) imaging systems, and permit the surgeon to perform complex, advanced laparoscopic operations while comfortably seated in an ergonomically correct position. Telerobotic surgical systems have only recently achieved limited approval for clinical use in the United States. At the present time, telerobotic surgical systems oer a limited selection of instruments and bulky con®gurations that impede many speci®c surgical procedures. Moreover, clinical experience, with the systems is limited. Thus, telerobotics must be regarded as an emerging technology that is still in its infancy and in an early phase of feasibility testing. The current generation of telerobots is not sophisticated enough to displace prevailing standard surgical practice. Telepresence The development of satisfactory telerobotic platforms has kindled interest in telepresence surgery and telementoring. Telepresence projects a virtual image of the Robotic replacement of the camera holder The ®rst clinically successful robot, the Robodoc, was introduced for use in total hip replacement [13, 14]. The initial goal was to replace the camera holder with a surgeon-controlled robot. In 1993 at the University of California at Davis, Moran was the ®rst to employ a passive electronically-regulated, pneumatically controlled camera holder [15]. Working in TuÈbingen, Germany, Buess et al. developed a prototype of a robotic camera holder, the FIPS Endoarm [16]. This robotic arm was remotely controlled with a ®nger ring that was clipped to one of the surgeon's instruments. It moved with four degrees of freedom while maintaining an invariant point of constraint motion. A British company, Armstrong Healthcare Ltd., 3 markets a robotic camera holder known as the ``Endoassist'' [17, 18] that has recently received FDA approval for use in the United States. Unfortunately, very little has been published about it to date. This device allows the surgeon to control its movements with his or her head. A device that emits infrared rays is worn by the surgeon. When the surgeon points the infrared beam to the point on the video monitor that he or she wishes to see, the robot adjusts the camera to view this area. From the Hotel-Dieu de Montreal Hospital, Gagner et al. reported three laparoscopic cholecystectomies that they performed with a prototype of a robotic surgical assistant [19]. The robotic arm moved with six degrees of freedom. It was controlled with a joystick by a surgeon in a remote room who viewed the operation on a monitor. In 1995, they updated their experience with this device [20]. Between 1 September 1993 and 10 October 1994, they successfully accomplished eight laparoscopic cholecystectomies with cholangiography in humans using this device. Total anesthesia time for these operations averaged 63 min. They concluded that their study ``represented a ®rst step toward the introduction of robotic technology in laparoscopic surgery.'' 1391 Fig. 1. AESOP, a voice-controlled robot, holds the video camera during laparoscopic procedures. It maintains a stable camera platform and ensures proper alignment of the video image with the horizon. This photograph shows a surgeon performing a solo laparoscopic left hemicolectomy with the assistance of AESOP. AESOP The ®rst robot approved by the FDA for clinical use in the abdomen was automated endoscope system for optimal positioning (AESOP) (Computer Motion, Santa 4 Barbara, CA, USA) (Fig. 1). FDA approval was granted in 1994. The acronym AESOP stands for Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning. Computer Motion was initially funded by a research grant from NASA and charged with the development of a robotic arm for the US space program. This arm was later modi®ed to hold a laparoscope and to replace the laparoscopic camera holder. When it was ®rst introduced, the surgeon controlled the robotic arm either manually or remotely with a foot switch or hand control [21, 22] but more recent generations of AESOP are voice controlled [23, 24]. The robot, which attaches to the side of the surgical table, has a series of adapters that allow any rigid laparoscope to be grasped. Urologists at Johns Hopkins have demonstrated the utility of AESOP for urological laparoscopic operations [25]. They studied the use of AESOP as a camera holder in 17 urological procedures, including nephrectomy, retroperitoneal lymph node sampling, varix ligation, pyeloplasty, Burch bladder suspension, pelvic lymph node dissection, orchiopexy, ureterolysis, and nephropexy. When they compared these robotically assisted operations to historical controls in which a surgical assistant held the camera, there was no increase in operating time in the robotic operations. They concluded that it might prove cost eective in the future to replace human surgical assistants with robotic assistants. In a second study, the same group found that AESOP provided a signi®cantly steadier camera platform than the human camera holder [26]. Surgeons in Kiel, Germany, explored the use of AESOP in gynecological laparoscopic operations and compared voice control of AESOP with the older foot or hand control systems [27]. They found that the robotic arm allowed them to perform complex laparo- scopic operations faster than when the camera was held by a human assistant. In addition, they concluded that the voice-controlled AESOP worked more eciently and faster than the older systems. AESOP facilitates solo-surgeon laparoscopic procedures in general surgery. Geis et al. used AESOP to perform 24 solo-surgeon laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs, cholecystectomies, and Nissen fundoplications [28]. All procedures were completed successfully without the aid of a surgical assistant. Groups in Antwerp, Belgium, and Catania, Italy, have found AESOP helpful in performing laparoscopic adrenalectomies [29, 30]. Both groups found that the camera platform provided a stable, constant video image that facilitated the operation. We recently documented the ability of AESOP to facilitate solo-surgeon laparoscopic colectomy [31]. We compared 14 robot-assisted laparoscopic colectomies performed in 2000 with 11 laparoscopic colectomies done the previous year. All operations were for benign disease. We found that there was no dierence in the operating time between the two groups. Eleven of the 14 robot-assisted operations were done by a solo surgeon using a three-trocar technique and without the help of an assistant surgeon. The most common reason for adding a fourth trocar was the need for the lysis of adhesions from previous abdominal operations. These two studies indicate that AESOP can adequately replace a human camera holder for general surgery laparoscopic procedures. Moreover, these studies found that the surgeon can often perform laparoscopic hernia and gastrointestinal operations on a solo basis, without the need for a surgical assistant. 5 Surgeons in Munich, Germany, have also developed a modi®cation of AESOP. Their SGRCCS system works on a color tracking system [32]. They modi®ed AESOP so that the robot automatically follows a color marker attached to one of the laparoscopic instruments inserted into the operative ®eld. They compared the use of SGRCCS in 20 laparoscopic cholecystectomies with the use of a human camera holder. The operative time was slightly shorter with the robot: 54 min vs 60 min with the human camera holder. There was a subjective impression on the part of the surgeon that the robot outperformed the human camera holder 70% of the time. AESOP has successfully launched the era of robotassisted surgery. It can reliably replace a human camera holder, and it provides a stable camera platform that may diminish the risk of motion sickness in the operative team. Skilled surgeons can use AESOP to perform solo laparoscopic operations without a camera holder or surgical assistant. In some hospitals, AESOP may oer cost advantages by decreasing the number of hospital employees required to assist in laparoscopic operations. Limitations of AESOP Many surgeons may not attain time savings and cost advantages with AESOP. This robot demands speci®c modi®cations to accommodate the surgeon's operating style. Voice control of AESOP requires constant chattering by the surgeon, which other members of the team 1392 may ®nd distracting. Moreover, voice control is slow compared to the rapid camera movements that can be achieved by a practiced and attentive assistant. This drawback tends to encourage the surgeon to complete a dissection in a single visual ®eld rather than jumping back and forth among several ®elds. Many surgeons may not wish to change the style of laparoscopic dissection that they have developed over the last decade. Indeed, surgeons who frequently perform laparoscopic cholecystectomies as a two-person team using a fourtrocar technique may well ®nd that AESOP increases the average operating time. Although AESOP has the potential to lower costs by replacing a camera holder, this cost savings is not generally borne out in real operative situations. Most laparoscopic procedures require a surgical assistant, and many operations (such as cholecystectomy) are performed with four trocars. This method permits the assistant surgeon to provide exposure with one hand while holding the camera with the other. In teaching hospitals, cost savings are even more unlikely. Surgical residents or medical students, who often act as assistant surgeons and camera holders, do not add any cost to the operation. As a result, replacing them with AESOP does not reduce hospital costs and may even interfere with surgical training. Telerobotic abdominal surgery Telerobotic surgery, or telepresence surgery, is the next step in the evolution of robotic surgery [33]. In these operations, the surgeon sits at a computer console. The computer translates the movement of the surgeon's hands into motions of the robotic instruments. The surgical telerobot, which is positioned by the side of the patient, holds the camera and manipulates two or more surgical instruments. The surgeon and computer console can be positioned at a remote site. The surgeon acts as the ``master'' and the robot as the ``slave'' [34]. The feasibility of remote surgeon telerobotics was ®rst demonstrated in 1991 [35]. The concept was that this technology would permit a surgeon at a remote site (such as an aircraft carrier) to operate on a distant patient (such as a wounded soldier on the battle®eld) [36]. Several groups developed systems that were designed to replace the surgical assistant. First-Assistant, for example, was a nonelectronic, pneumatically controlled robotic arm. The surgeon moved the device manually [37]. More recent robotic systems were designed to replace both the surgical assistant and the camera holder. In general, these robots were similar to camera-holding robots but were modi®ed to hold surgical instruments. The surgeon controlled these robots with foot or hand controls [38, 39]. Buess et al. have been working on a 6 new telerobotic system called advanced robotic telemanipulator for minimally invasive surgery (ARTEMIS), but it is not yet ready for clinical trials [40, 41]. Two telerobotic systems are currently commercially availableÐZeus (Computer Motion) and da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain Mountain View, CA, USA). Fig. 2. The da Vinci robotic surgical system consists of three parts: A the surgeon's console, B an electronics tower holding video equipment, and C the robotic arms. Surgeons look into the binocular view®nder, immersing themselves in a three-dimensional projection of the operative ®eld. The ``masters'' into which the surgeon slides his/her ®ngers translate the motions of the surgeon's hands into movements of the robotic instruments. Da Vinci Da Vinci consists of three separate parts (Fig. 2) [42]. The surgeon sits in an ergonomically comfortable and advantageous position at a console or work station (Fig. 3). His/her hands ®t into ``masters'' that act as the interface with the computer. The computer and (3-D) imaging system ®ll the remainder of the console. A tower holds the video electronic equipment and an insuator for the pneumoperitoneum. The robot has three arms. The central arm holds the camera, and the two outer arms hold the surgical instruments. The surgical instruments articulate at a ``wrist.'' They move with seven degrees of freedom and two degrees of axial rotation. The robot is moved to the side of the surgical table. It is connected to the three operative trocars and not to the surgical table. The computer keeps track of the 3-D location of a point near the trocar's tip, not the tip of the surgical instruments. The telescope passes through a 12-mm trocar and the surgical instruments through two 8-mm trocars. In the United States, the surgical instruments are partially reusable; they can be used 10 times. The telerobot's computer tracks the number of uses of each instrument and will not operate an instrument after the 10th use. Da Vinci oers a true 3-D imaging system that is much like looking through ®eld binoculars. The telescope for this system is 12 mm in diameter and contains two separate 5-mm telescopes. Two three-chip video cameras telecast the image to two separate CRT screens. A synchronizer keeps the images from the two cameras in phase. Mirrors re¯ect the images from the CRT screens up to the binocular viewer in the surgeon's console. In this system, the left and right images remain separated from telescopes to the surgeon's eyes. As in binoculars, the right eye sees the right image and the left eye sees the left image. Cardiac surgery Da Vinci was designed speci®cally to accomplish closedchest coronary artery bypass grafting [43]. As a result, 1393 Fig. 3. Simulated setup of the operating room for a telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy using the da Vinci telerobotic surgical system. The surgeon sits in an economically comfortable position at the console. The bedside assistant switches instruments on the robotic arms as required. cardiac surgeons have accumulated substantial experimental experience with da Vinci prototypes [44±46]. In 1999, Carpentier et al. reported the ®rst successful use of da Vinci for closed-chest coronary artery bypass grafting [47]. Surgeons in Dresden have used da Vinci to harvest both the left and right internal mammary arteries for coronary artery bypass grafting in 27 patients [48]. Once the arteries were harvested, the coronary artery bypass was constructed through a left mini-thoracotomy. The Leipzig group has rapidly accumulated a large clinical experience with da Vinci for coronary artery bypass surgery [49]. They used da Vinci in a progressive manner. Initially, they used da Vinci to harvest 81 left internal mammary arteries (LIMA). They then used da Vinci to sew 15 LIMA to left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery bypass grafts through a median sternotomy incision. Following this experience, they were 7 able to construct 27 LIMA-to-LAD bypass grafts on an arrested heart (Peripheral Access Technique; Heartport, Redwood, CA, USA) with a closed chest. More recently, they succeeded in 14 of 17 attempts to use da Vinci to anastomose the LIMA to the LAD on a beating heart with a closed chest. The American FDA trial of closedchest coronary artery bypass grafting using da Vinci has just been initiated. Dr. Michael Argenziano of New York Presbyterian Hospital, who is leading this multiinstitutional study, performed the ®rst successful procedure in January 2002. Clinical experience with da Vinci for mitral valve repair is also building. The Leipzig group successfully used da Vinci to repair mitral valves in 13 of 15 patients [50]. Chitwood et al. have initiated a trial on da Vinci± assisted repair of mitral valves at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina [51]. In the United States, the FDA has approved da Vinci for all thoracic operations, including internal mammary artery harvesting, but not cardiac operations, such as coronary artery bypass grafting. Abdominal surgery Cadiere et al. reported the ®rst successful clinical implementation of telerobotics in March of 1997 when they performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a prototype of the da Vinci robotic surgical system [52]. Cadiere et al. also reported the successful use of this system for telerobotic laparoscopic gastric bypass [53], Nissen fundoplication [54, 55], and Fallopian tube reanastomosis [56]. Table 1 lists 141 published telerobotic gastrointestinal operations accomplished with the da Vinci robotic surgical system [31, 57±67]. The most commonly reported operation was Nissen fundoplication (38 cases); the second most common was cholecystectomy (20 cases). Many of these cases were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Surgeons (SAGES) in April 2001. These reports indicated that telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery could be done safely. Several studies in Table 1 examined surgical times for telerobotic operations. Cadiere et al. compared 10 da Vinci Nissen fundoplications with 11 laparoscopic Nissen fundoplications in a randomized trial [54, 55]. Total surgical time for the da Vinci operations was signi®cantly longer than the standard operations: 76 min vs 52 min. Median length of stay for the da Vinci patients was 1 day. Clinical outcomes were similar for both groups. Chapman et al. of the East Carolina University School of Medicine reported that the total operative time for 10 da Vinci laparoscopic cholecystectomies was 60 25 min [61]. Chapman's group average 84 min for telerobotic fundoplications [62]. At Ohio State University, Melvin et al. averaged 178.6 min for the wide range of foregut operations listed in Table 1 [63, 65]. None of these reports identi®ed a learning curve for surgical times during a surgeon's early experience with telerobotic gastrointestinal operations. In contrast, Ceconni et al. in Grosseto, Italy found that their surgical time for cholecystectomy improved after 20 da Vinci operations [58]. Surgical time averaged 103.5 min for the ®rst 20 telerobotic cholecystectomies but dropped to 70.3 min for the next 19. These time studies suggest that experienced laparoscopic surgeons rapidly gain facility with this new technology [68]. Our initial experience suggests that telerobotic laparoscopic colectomy by a remote surgeon is feasible and can be done safely [31]. In two of three operations, a solo surgeon accomplished the operation. We found that the da Vinci system could reach from the ¯exures to the upper pelvis without much diculty. We thought that the instruments were adequate for the task but that speci®c bowel instruments were required to further facilitate the procedure and need to be developed by the manufacturers. Urologists have found important applications for telerobotic surgery. In France, Guillonneau and Vallancien [69, 70] and Abbou et al. [71] have demonstrated the advantages of using a laparoscopic approach for radical prostatectomy. Recently, Abbou's group in Creteil, France, has successfully accomplished a telerobotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using the da Vinci robotic surgical system [72, 73]. The articulated instruments of da Vinci seem particularly suited for the dicult anastomosis between the urethra and bladder. In Paris, Guillonneau and Vallancien's group reported ®ve da Vinci radical prostatectomies [74]. The mean 1394 48 Table 1. Published telerobotic gastrointestinal operations accomplished using the da Vinci robotic surgical system Operation Hanische Cecconi Hashizume Chapman Cholecystectomy Esophagectomy Fundoplication Heller myotomy Gastrectomy Splenectomy Pancreatectomy Collectomy 5 39 2 16 4 1 2 10 1 5 2 2 1 1 2 3 operating time, from the beginning of the dissection until the last stitch of the anastomosis was tied, was 222 min (range, 150±381). Average blood loss for the ®ve cases was 800 ml. The urinary catheter was left in place for an average of 6.5 days. Four of ®ve patients were continent for urine. These surgeons thought that the urethral anastomosis was easier to construct with da Vinci than when using standard laparoscopic tech8 niques. Rassweiler et al. of the Klinikum Heilbronn in Germany also reported da Vinci radical prostatectomies in six patients [75]. Their average operating time, including pelvic lymph node dissection, was 315 min (range, 242±480). The urinary catheter was left in for 5 days. Three of the six patients were completely continent for urine after 1 month. Binder et al. from Frankfurt, Germany, reported the largest series [76]. They completed 44 of 46 attempted operations using da Vinci. Operative time dropped from 7.5±11 h for the ®rst 20 patients to 3.5±5.5 h for the last 10 patients. These surgeons found telerobotic radical prostatectomy feasible, but they expressed about the cost of the device and the need for additional instruments. So far, there have been just two published reports of a telerobotic nephrectomy. Guillonneau et al. in Paris reported a telerobotic nephrectomy using da Vinci in a 77-year-old woman with a nonfunctioning hydronephrotic right kidney due to ureteropelvic junction obstruction [77]. Operative time was <200 min and total anesthesia time was 245 min. Blood loss was <100 ml. This report con®rmed that telerobotic nephrectomy was feasible. Vanuno and Horgan have been using da Vinci in Chicago for laparoscopic donor nephrectomies [78]. Mean operative time for 10 donor nephrectomies was 166 min, and average hospital stay was 1.8 days. Vanuno and Horgan stated that da Vinci allowed them to perform these operations with ``greater precision, con®dence, and comfort.'' Few urologists have substantial experience with laparoscopy, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a very dicult operation to perform [79]. As a result, telerobotic surgery may oer speci®c advantages for urologists during their initial experience with minimally invasive approaches to this operation as well as other urological procedures [80]. As has already occurred in cardiac surgery, the 3-D imaging system and the articulated instruments may foster the use of minimally invasive techniques in urological procedures, since few 9 urologist have accumulated much laparoscopic experience to date. Melvin 1 10 4 Ozawa Talimini Cadiere Ballantyne 3 4 1 1 5 3 10 3 Limitations of da Vinci Da Vinci is still in its ®rst generation of production. Because it was designed speci®cally for cardiac surgery, the engineers did not consider the requirements of abdominal surgery. As a result, the use of da Vinci for abdominal surgery presents a variety of challenges. Instrumentation is limited. The robotic arms are bulky. The arms are not attached to the operating room table. Large excursion arcs of the arms lead to frequent collisions. The strong robotic arms lack tensile feedback. Use of the telerobot in standard operating rooms is cumbersome and frustrating. Although intuitive oers a broad range of cardiac surgery instruments for their da Vinci telerobot, it has released only two instruments designed speci®cally for gastrointestinal surgeryÐthe Cadiere graspers and ultrasound scissors. Babcock-type graspers, for example, are not available for bowel operations. The needle holders are designed for cardiac needles but not gastrointestinal needles. Electrocautery scissors are not available. Ultrasound scissors have been recently released, but they lack the handlike motions of the other instruments. The da Vinci system ®lls a large operating room, so its use in smaller rooms is impractical. It weighs a great deal. It is dicult to move around the room and even more dicult to push down the hall to another operating room. Changing the setup of the operating room from that needed for cholecystectomy to the setup needed for fundoplication or colon resection is time consuming and tiring. For storage outside the operating room, a small room is required. A mobile tower supports da Vinci's robotic arms. The arms are not attached to the surgical table. During complex operations such as bowel resections, the robotic arms must be separated from the patient for each position change. This switch adds time to complex abdominal surgical procedures. The robotic arms were engineered to meet the requirements of cardiac surgery performed on patients in a ¯at, horizontal position. Abdominal operations require extreme positions, such as Trendelenberg and reverse Trendelenberg, thus forcing the extreme elevation of one robotic arm and the extreme depression of the other and promoting collisions of the elbows of the robotic arms. For this reason, minor misplacement of the trocars away from the ideal positions may severely impede the performance of operations. 1395 Fig. 5. The surgeon's console for Zeus is divided into two parts. A The video monitor projects a three-dimensional image that can be viewed through glasses mounted with polarizing ®lters. The balllike hand interface translates the motions of the surgeon's hands into motions of the robotic instruments. B The surgeon sits comfortably in a chair at Zeus's console. The three Zeus robotic arms are visible in the background. Fig. 4. The telerobot Zeus uses three robotic arms. These robotic arms consist of a voice-controlled camera holder, AESOP, and two modi®ed AESOP arms that act as the surgeon's right and left hands. Each arm is attached directly to the surgical table. Thus, permits movement of the surgical table can be moved without separating the telerobotic arms from the patient. Each arm is moved and attached to the table separately. The excursion arcs and motion scaling of da Vinci's robotic arms are designed for the delicate motions of internal mammary artery harvest and coronary artery bypass, but operations such as colectomy require large excursion arcs and broad, sweeping motions of the instrument. The motion-scaling reduction programmed into da Vinci makes many of these maneuvers unduly tedious. The current generation of da Vinci does not provide tensile feedback. The surgeon must rely on visual clues to estimate the tension placed on tissues by da Vinci's powerful robotic arms. Inexperienced telerobotic surgeons can easily avulse tissues with the robotic arms if they fail to heed these subtle visual clues. Similarly, the surgeon cannot judge how tightly the instruments are grasping the tissues. This situation can lead to the fraying of sutures or pressure injuries to tissue. Tensile sensors exist, and future generations of telerobots are likely to incorporate this technology. Nonetheless, the lack of feedback is still a problem with current systems. The video signal from da Vinci is generally broadcast on several slave monitors in the operating room. The assistant surgeon, scrub nurse, and other members of the operating room team view the operation on these two-dimensional telecasts. Connection of the da Vinci video image to the slave monitors is easily accomplished in new integrated operating rooms, but it can be a wiring challenge in older operating rooms using mobile laparoscopy video towers. This problem is compounded if it is necessary to switch back and forth between a laparoscopic telescope and the da Vinci telescope during dierent parts of the operation. As the technology demands of surgery increase, the need for dedicated operating rooms speci®cally designed and wired for these advanced technologies has also increased. As a result, we suggest that when considering the cost of initiating a telerobotic surgery program, an institution should in- clude the cost of upgrading at least one operating room to a fully integrated advanced laparoscopic surgery operating room. Zeus Computer Motion, the manufacturer of AESOP, has also developed the Zeus telerobot [81]. It used AESOP as a foundation for the development of a robot capable of telerobotic surgery. In this system, the voice-controlled robot, AESOP, continues to hold the camera. Two additional AESOP-like units have been modi®ed to hold surgical instruments (Fig. 4). These three units are independently attached to the operating room table. A computer within the surgeon's console controls the three arms. The computer keeps track of the 3-D position of the tip of each instrument and camera, not the position of the trocar (as does the da Vinci computer). In earlier models, the surgeon controlled the laparoscopic instruments with handles similar to traditional laparoscopic instruments. The computer translated movements of these handles into identical motions of the robotic surgical instruments. The most recent version of Zeus uses a more ergonomic interface between the surgeon and robotic instruments (Fig. 5A). These handles control surgical instruments that articulate near their tips. The surgeon sits in a comfortable chair in front of the video monitor (Fig. 5B). The computer eliminates the surgeon's resting tremor and can be set to scale the movements of the surgeon's hand over a range of 2:1 to 10:1. In Zeus, the surgeon observes the operation with a Storz 3-D imaging system (Karl Storz Endoscopy, Santa Barbara, CA, USA). The robotic arm that holds the camera is voice controlled by the surgeon. This 3-D imaging system accelerates the frame rate of the video system. Separate right and left video cameras visualize the operative ®eld. Each broadcasts at a rate of 30 frames per second. A computer merges and accelerates this to a broadcast rate of 60 frames per second. This broadcast alternates frames from the left and right video cameras. The video monitor has an active matrix 1396 covering its surface. The matrix alternates between a clockwise and counterclockwise polarizing ®lter. The clockwise ®lter synchronizes with the right video frame, and the counterclockwise one matches the left video image. The surgeon wears glasses that have a clockwise polarizing ®lter as the right lens and a counterclockwise polarizing ®lter as the left lens. These glasses permit the left eye to see only the video image from the left camera while the right eye sees the video image from the right camera. This causes a 3-D image to be projected from the video monitor. Cardiac surgery Zeus, like da Vinci, was developed speci®cally to do cardiac operations. Most of the clinical reports on Zeus have focused on this area. The most advanced area of telerobotic surgery for Zeus is internal mammary artery harvest and coronary artery bypass grafting. Boyd et al. in London, Ontario, demonstrated the eective and safe use of Zeus for harvesting internal mammary arteries [82, 83]. The left internal mammary arteries were successfully harvested with Zeus in 19 patients. A closedchest, three-trocar technique was used. All 19 operations were completed successfully and had excellent clinical outcomes. A number of early publications documented the feasibility of performing coronary artery bypass surgery with Zeus in both live animal models [84, 85] and cadavers [86, 87]. Clinical cases soon followed. Surgeons in Munich have championed the use of Zeus for coronary artery bypass grafting. In 1999, Reichenspurner et al. reported the ®rst successful clinical use of Zeus for coronary artery bypass grafting [88]. In two patients, surgeons harvested the left internal mammary artery using endoscopic techniques and then sutured the internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery anastomosis through three thoracic trocars. The heart was arrested using an endovascular cardiopulmonary bypass system (Port Access; Heartport). Both patients recovered uneventfully. Later that year, the Munich group used Zeus to successfully perform closed-chest, o-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary artery) in three patients [89]. By 2000, the same group had performed coronary artery bypass grafting on beating hearts in 10 patients with Zeus. The anastomoses were technically satisfactory by angiography in all 10 patients [90]. Total operative time ranged from 4 to 8 h (median, 5.5). The Zeus-assisted anastomoses required 14±50 min (median, 25). Boyd's group in London, Ontario is the only group in North America that has reported closed-chest, o-pump coronary artery bypass grafting with Zeus [91]. These papers have paved the way for other groups and documented the clinical possibility of closed-chest, opump coronary artery bypass grafting using Zeus. Two groups in the United States have used Zeus for coronary artery bypass grafting as part of FDA trials. Surgeons at Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania harvested left internal mammary arteries through open chests with the patients on standard bypass [92]. Three subxiphoid trocars were then inserted. Zeus was used to sew the left internal mammary arteries to the left anterior descending arteries. Other bypass grafts were sewn by traditional techniques. Eight of the 10 anastomoses were satisfactory, but the other two required revision. All 10 patients recovered uneventfully. All grafts were open by angiography 6 weeks after the operation. Surgeons at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, reported 1-year follow-up on patients who had undergone Zeus-assisted operations. These surgeons used Zeus through three 5-mm trocars. The heart was arrested and on bypass. Left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery anastomoses were constructed using Zeus in 19 patients. Other bypass grafts were constructed without Zeus. All grafts were patent on postoperative angiographies. At an average follow-up of 1 year, all patients were functioning at a New York Heart Association class I [93]. FDA trials are ongoing in this area, and additional reports are expected in the near future. Zeus will be used for a variety of cardiac procedures in the future. Luison and Boyd, for example, reported a pericardiectomy accomplished with a 3-D imaging system [94]. This report served to focus attention on the advantages of 3-D imaging systems in complex anatomical environments. Similarly, Grossi et al. have used Zeus at New York University for mitral valve surgery [95]. These areas of development look especially promising. Abdominal surgery The FDA only recently (October 2001) granted Zeus limited clinical approval for abdominal operations in the United States. Consequently, much of the work to date with Zeus has been done in animal models. Goh's group in Singapore, for example, used Zeus to perform cholecystectomies in seven pigs [96]. Their mean operative time was 46 min (range, 30±62). They found that, with practice, their setup time dropped from 30 to 14 min. Hollands et al. at Louisiana State University (LSU) have explored the utility of Zeus for pediatric procedures and, in particular, the advantages of telerobotic suturing over standard laparoscopic suturing techniques. The LSU group found that they could construct porcine enteroenterostomies faster with Zeus than with standard laparoscopic techniques [97]. The telerobotic operations averaged 14 min less than the laparoscopic operations, including setup time for the robot. The group also compared the repair of a choledochotomy in pigs using standard laparoscopic techniques with the same procedures using Zeus [98]. The Zeus repair required 70±90 min more than the laparoscopic technique, but there were signi®cantly fewer complications (four vs nine) in the Zeus group. These studies suggest that gastrointestinal suturing with Zeus may oer advantages over traditional laparoscopic techniques. Using experimental models, the Cleveland Clinic has explored the applications for Zeus in gynecology and urology. Margossian et al. demonstrated that 1397 uterine horn anastomoses in six pigs sutured using needed to set up and take down the Zeus robot was 18 Zeus were all patent 4 weeks after surgery [99]. This min. Median time of dissection using Zeus was 25 min, study highlighted the potential role of telerobotics for and the median overall operative time was 108 min. The microsurgical suturing. Margossian and Falcone also only complication among the 25 patients was a possible used Zeus to perform ®ve adnexal operations and ®ve 12 pulmonary embolism, but no embolist was found on CT hysterectomies in pigs [100]. The mean length of surscan. The average length of postoperative stay was 3 gery was 170 min for the adnexal operations and 200 days, which was similar to that for standard laparomin for the hysterectomies. All 10 operations were scopic cholecystectomy in France. These surgeons emdone telerobotically. phasized the potential advantages of a digitized format Gill et al. have used Zeus in experimental studies at for information transfer and the visualization by the the Cleveland Clinic for pyeloplasty, nephrectomy, and 13 surgeon of remote surgery over long distances. 10 adrenalectomy [101]. Using a swine model, they sutured four pyeloplasties laparoscopically and six pyeloplasties Limitations of Zeus telerobotically. The telerobotic anastomoses averaged a total of 115 min vs 94 min for the laparoscopic ones. Zeus evolved from AESOP and has already passed Five of six of the Zeus and three of four of the laparothrough four generations of development. Nevertheless, scopic pyeloplasties were immediately watertight. The surgeons still face a number of obstacles before this same group also compared telerobotic nephrectomy and telerobot can be used on a routine clinical basis. Zeus adrenalectomy with laparoscopic operations [101]. has many of the same diculties as da Vinci. MisAgain, the telerobotic operation required signi®cantly placement of the trocars leads to collisions con¯icts more time, but similar dissections were accomplished in between the robotic arms. Zeus's various components both groups. The Cleveland Clinic surgeons thought ®ll a large operating room and hopelessly clutter small that telerobotics oered distinct advantages when suones. Zeus does not yet oer tensile feedback. Moreturing was required and that telerobotic dissection over, feeding Zeus's video output into traditional mobile achieved results similar to laparoscopic techniques. video towers is often a challenge. Like da Vinci, this Several groups have assessed Zeus as a means for telerobot is also much better suited for use in a modern, instructing medical students, surgical residents, and fully integrated operating room. In addition, Zeus presurgeons in the techniques of advanced laparoscopic sents some unique challenges. surgery [102±104]. These studies found that telerobotics Zeus's 3-D imaging system requires the use of speconferred little advantage on the performance of simple ci®c glasses. These glasses allow each eye to see only one tasks, such as picking up and dropping beads into a of the two alternating video signals. The right eye sees receptacle. However, complex tasks, such as suturing or only the right video image and the left eye only the right. suture tying, were accomplished with greater speed and The image is blurred when the glasses are not worn. precision when performed telerobotically, regardless of Some surgeons dislike wearing these glasses. The ¯ickthe individual's prior level of training. These studies ering of the alternating images on the same video screen suggested that telerobotic surgical systems could faciligives some individuals motion sickness. As a result, tate the learning and performance of complex laparosome surgeons prefer a standard two-dimensional image scopic operations. when using Zeus. Two recent reports attest to the clinical utility of Computer Motion introduced in 2001 Zeus surgical Zeus in gynecology and urology. In 1999, Falcone et al. instruments with handlike motions. These instruments reported the use of Zeus at the Cleveland Clinic in a provide motion with six degrees of freedom. Although tubal reanastomosis [105]. They updated their experithis technology seems promising, little clinical experience in 2000 with an additional 10 patients. The tubal ence is available as yet. reanastomosis was accomplished in each patient with At present, however, the greatest obstacle to the four sutures of 8-0 polygalactin sutures. Postoperative clinical use of Zeus is its limited FDA approval. Zeus is hysterosalpingograms 6 weeks after surgery demoncurrently approved by the FDA for use as a surgical strated patency in 17 of the 19 tubes. Guillonneau and assistant but not on an operating surgeon. This limitaVallancien have used Zeus for pelvic lymph node distion continues to impede the acquisition of clinical exsections in patients with prostate cancer [106]. The avperience in the United States, since clinical use of Zeus is erage operating time for 10 telerobotic lymph node con®ned to FDA-approved trials. Fortunately, Comdissections was 125 minÐsigni®cantly longer than the puter Motion has completed trials with Zeus for choleaverage of 60 min required for the standard laparocystectomy and Nissen fundoplication, and full FDA scopic operations. These two studies concluded that approval for abdominal surgery is expected in the near this technology warrants further study in these clinical future. arenas. 11 Marescaux et al. of the European Institute for Telesurgery (Strasbourg, France) recently reported the Telepresence surgery largest clinical trial with Zeus in abdominal surgery [107]. Twenty-®ve selected patients underwent Zeusassisted laparoscopic cholecystectomies. One operation Telerobotics was ®rst developed with grants from the US Department of Defense to allow surgeons at remote was converted from a telerobotic procedure to a standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The median time locations to operate on wounded soldiers on the bat- 1398 tle®eld [108]. Ninety percent of all combat deaths occur 1. The novice surgeon should pass a formal course that before the soldier reaches a medical facility; few soldiers includes didactic sessions and animal experience with die after reaching military hospitals [109, 110]. Therethe procedure. fore, the aim was to allow surgeons to immediately treat 2. The surgeon should observe an expert surgeon perlife-threatening injuriesÐsuch as hemorrhaging from forming the operation. major vesselsÐthat might kill soldiers before they could 3. The surgeon should act as a ®rst assistant to an expert be evacuated to military hospitals [111]. In this scenario, surgeon for the procedure or be preceptored by an the wounded soldier is placed in a telepresence surgery expert surgeon during his/her early clinical experivehicle. Three-dimensional imaging systems project the ence. image of the wounded soldier back to the surgeon on an 4. A proctor should monitor the surgeon during the aircraft carrier or at another remote site. This virtual surgeon's initial independent experience with the environment allows the surgeon to perform the lifeprocedure. saving operation. Experimental studies have proven the validity of this Unfortunately, preceptoring and proctoring proapproach. In 1998, Bowersox et al. used a prototype of a 18 grams have always been dicult to implement. For one telerobotic surgical system to close gastrotomies and thing, they often represent an inecient use of the enterotomies, excise gallbladders, and repair liver lacexpert surgeon's time. Additionally, no mechanism has erations in swine [112]. Recently, telepresence surgery been developed to pay for these services. It is thus was achieved with the surgeon separated from his padicult for expert surgeons to justify the requisite time tient by 3800 miles [113]. Sitting at a Zeus console in expenditure. Telepresence resolves many of these isNew York City, Marescaux performed a telerobotic sues. The expert surgeon can remain in his/her oce or cholecystectomy on a patient in Strasbourg, France hospital and telementor the novice surgeon at remote [114, 115]. The surgeon's console was connected directly sites. to Zeus's robotic arms by a transatlantic ®beroptic The introduction of relatively inexpensive means of cable. This direct connection minimized the time lag teleconferencing in the 1990s spurred interest in telebetween motions of the surgeon's hands, movements of mentoring. Surgeons at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles the robotic instruments, and the returned video image. determined the maximum degree of video compression The use of satellites to transmit the digital signals that still allowed acceptable remote proctoring of lapaintroduces too great a distance and signi®cantly delays roscopic operations. They found that a standard 1.5 mb/ the round trip of these electronic signals. sec telecommunications data line provided an adequate Telepresence surgery oers a technological solution telesurgical image [121]. In 1997, Rosser telementored to surgical manpower shortages in remote and underlaparoscopic colectomies performed by inexperienced served areas. Moreover, it oers a means of improving surgeons from across campus [122]. The operating suroutcomes for infrequently performed and technically geon was coached from a mobile command center demanding operations. One can envision a future in parked outside the hospital. In the next phase, Rosser which an expert surgeon performs operations such as telementored laparoscopic Nissen fundoplications at adrenalectomy or Heller myotomy for an entire region another hospital 5 miles away. In 1998, Johns Hopkins from a central location, such as the state university. instituted a telementoring program between Johns Similarly, mobile vehicles carrying the telerobot could Hopkins Bayview Medical Center and Johns Hopkins migrate across third-world areas, allowing an expert Hospital, which are 3.5 miles apart [123]. The surgeons surgeon to remain at the university while eciently at Johns Hopkins then succeeded in telementoring a performing the sophisticated operations needed in poor laparoscopic adrenalectomy in Innsbruck, Austria; communities. Nonetheless, ethical and legal paradoxes a laparoscopic varicocelectomy in Bangkok, Thailand; a raised by telepresence surgery have already been idenlaparoscopic radical nephrectomy in Singapore [124, ti®ed. For one thing, the impact of state and interna125]; and ®ve urological procedures, including a lapational borders on medical licensing remains ill de®ned roscopic radical nephrectomy, in Rome, Italy [126]. [117]. For another, remote telepresence surgery certainly Newer technology permitted this telementoring to occur interferes with traditional clinician±patient relationships over three ISDN lines at 384 kbps. The time lag of the [116]. It will be necessary to balance the advantages of video image was 1 sec. delivering sophisticated surgical care to remote areas Other groups have also explored the utility of this against the importance of direct surgeon-to-patient approach. In 1997, Osaka University in Japan estabcontact. lished a tele-education and telementoring network that linked ®ve remote hospitals with the university [127]. This network served to tele-educate young surgeons and to telementor surgeon during advanced laparoscopic Telementoring procedures. The US Navy demonstrated another interesting use of telementoring. Video and computer comThe introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the munications technology were used to establish a late 1980s led to new guidelines for the training of surBattlegroup Telemedicine system [128]. Land-based geons already in practice in the performance of new surgeons telementored the performance of ®ve laparooperation [118±120]. These guidelines generally include scopic inguinal hernia repairs on the aircraft carrier USS the following recommendations: Abraham Lincoln. The telemedicine system was also used 1399 to obtain surgical consultations with other surgical specialists. Telementoring may have a future role in teaching laparoscopic surgery to surgical residents. The University of Hawaii tested the ability of a surgeon to telementor residents performing laparoscopic cholecys17 tectomy [129]. The operating times of six operations performed with and six operations without a scrubbed attending surgeon in the operating room were similar. All operations were telementored from a remote site. 18 In Chorey, United Kingdom, attending surgeons telementored higher surgical trainees from a remote room. The trainees independently performed laparoscopic cholecystectomies in a total of 34 patients. The trainees could seek advice from the telementor, and the telementor could oer advice or intervene during the operation. The trainees completed 33 of the 34 operations. These studies indicated that telementoring is a safe and eective teaching technique and may represent a satisfactory means of assessing when trainees are adequately trained to perform independent and unsupervised operations. In Europe, there is growing interest in the idea of linking the resources of several universities to provide teleconsulting and telesurgical resources to other surgeons [130±132]. Marescaux et al. have envisioned a future in which a ``virtual university'' will provide teleeducation, teletraining, telementoring, teleproctoring, and teleaccreditation for surgeons who wish to learn new procedures and technologies or to update themselves 21 on recent developments. In addition, the virtual university on the internet would allow the experience of expert 19 surgeons to be applied throughout the served area via telepresence surgery [133]. Rosser et al. of the Yale University School of Medicine demonstrated how telementoring from a virtual university could bene®t third-world areas. Rosser telementored surgeons performing laparoscopic cholecystectomies in Ecuador [134]. A mobile operating room was equipped with telecommunications equipment that permitted him to supervise surgeons in Ecuador from his oce in New Haven, Connecticut. This study suggests that telecommunications can provide new avenues for surgeons around the world to gain training from expert surgeons in a cost-eective manner. The FDA approved the ®rst robotic telemedicine device in October 2001 [135]. Computer Motion, CA manufactures Socrates, which is a robotic telecollaboration device. Socrates is designed to facilitate telementoring. The telementor uses Socrates from a remote site to connect with an operating room and share audio and video signals. The telementor uses Socrates' telestrator to annotate anatomy or surgical instructions. 20 The telementor can also control the movements of the camera and other electronic equipment in the operating room via a voice-controlled system. New technologies such as Socrates will make the virtual university available to many users in the immediate future and help to ®rmly establish telerobotics, telepresence, and telementoring into the landscape of 21st century surgery. References 21 22 23 24 25 1. Satava RM (1992) Nintendo surgery. JAMA 267: 2329±2330 2. Lo P, Ahmed N, Chung RS (2001) Which laparoscopic operations are the fastest growing in residency programs? Surg Endosc 15 Suppl 1: S145 3. Satava RM (1993) Surgery 2001: a technologic framework for the future. Surg Endosc 7: 111±113 4. Satava RM, Simon IB (1993) Teleoperation, telerobotics, and telepresence in surgery. Endosc surg 1: 151±153 5. Satava RM (1993) High tech surgery: speculations on future directions. In: Hunter JG, Sackier JM (eds) Minimally invasive surgery. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 339±347 6. Satava RM (1998) Transitioning to the future. J Am Coll Surg 186: 691±692 7. Satava RM, Jones SB (2001) Telepresence for the laparoscopic surgeon. In: Zucker KA (ed) Surgical laparoscopy. 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York, pp 797±802 8. Satava RM, Jones SB (2000) Preparing surgeons for the 21st century: implications of advanced technologies. Surg Clin North Am 80: 1353±1365 9. Marescaux J, Mutter D, Soler L, Vix M, Leroy J (1999) The virtual university applied to telesurgery: from tele-education to tele-manipulation. Bull Acad Natl Med 183: 509±521 10. Byrne JP, Mughal MM (2000) Telementoring as an adjunct to training and competence-based assessment in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 14: 1159±1161 11. Rosser Jr JC, Murayama M, Gabriel NH (2000) Minimally invasive surgical training solutions for the twenty-®rst century. Surg Clin North Am 80: 1607±1624 12. Lee BR, Moore R (2000) International telementoring: a feasible method of instruction. World J Urol 18: 296±298 13. Paul H, Bargar WL, Mittestadt B, et al (1992) Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 285: 57±66 14. Taylor RH, Joskowicz L, Williamson, et al (1999) Computerintegrated revision total hip replacement surgery: concept and preliminary results. Med Image Anal 3: 301±319 15. Moran ME (1993) Stationary and automated laparoscopically assisted technologies. J Laparoendosc Surg 3: 221±227 16. Arezzo A, Ulmer F, Weiss O, Schurr MO, Hamad M, Buess GF (2000) Experimental trial on solo surgery for minimally invasive therapy: comparison of dierent systems in a phantom model. Surg Endosc 14: 955±959 17. Yavuz Y, Ystgaard B, Skogvoll E, Marvik R (2000) A comparative study evaluating the performance of surgical robots AESOP and Endosista. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Tech 10: 163±167 18. Arezzo A, Testa T, Ulmer F, Schurr MO, Degregori M, Buess GF (2000) Positioning systems for endoscopic solo surgery. Minerva Chir 55: 635±641 19. Gagner M, Bein E, Hurteau R, Pomp A (1994) Robotic interactive laparoscopic cholecystectomy [letter]. Lancet 343: 596±597 20. Begin E, Gagner M, Hurteau R, de Santis S, Pomp A (1995) A robotic camera for laparoscopic surgery: conception and experimental results. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5: 6±11 21. Sackier JM, Wang Y (1994) Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery: from concept to development. Surg Endosc 8: 63±66 22. Jacobs LK, Shayani V, Sackier JM (1997) Determination of the learning curve of the AESOP robot. Surg Endosc 11: 54±55 23. Johanet H (1998) Voice-controlled robot: new surgical aide? Thoughts of a user. Ann Chir 52: 918±921 24. Allaf ME, Jackman SV, Schulam PG, Cadeddu JA, Lee BR, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1998) Laparoscopic visual ®eld: voice vs foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot. Surg Endosc 12: 1415±1418 25. Partin AW, Adams JB, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1995) Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 181: 552±557 26. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 154: 2134±2146 27. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W (1998) One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod 13: 2748±2750 1400 26 27 28 29 30 28. Geis WP, Kim HC, Brennan Jr EJ, McAfee PC, Wang Y (1996) Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improved eciency and decreased resource utilization in complex minimally invasive surgery procedures. Stud Health Technol Inform 29: 471±481 29. Hubens G, Ysebaert D, Vaneerdewerg W, Chapelle T, Eyskens E (1999) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy with the aid of the AESOP 2000 robot. Acta Chir Belg 99: 125±127 30. Piazza L, Caragliano P, Scardilli M, Sgroi AV, Marino G, Giannone G (1999) Laparoscopic robot-assisted adrenalectomy and left ovariectomy (case reports). Chir Ital 51: 456±466 31. Ballantyne GH, Merola P, Weber A, Wasielewski A (2001) Robotic solutions to the pitfalls of laparoscopic colectomy. Osp Ital Chir 7: 405±412 32. Omote K, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Arbter K, Wei GQ, Siewert JR, Hirzinger G (1999) Self-guided robotic camera control for laparoscopic surgery compared with human camera control. Am J Surg 177: 321±324 33. Satava RM, Jones SB (2000) Preparing surgeons for the 21st century. Surg Clin North Am 80: 1353±1365 34. Rininsland HH (1993) Basics of robotics and manipulators in endoscopic surgery. Endosc Surg 1: 154±159 35. Green PE, Piantanida TA, Hill JW, Simon IB, Satava RM (1991) Telepresence: dexterous procedures in a virtual operating ®eld. [Abstract]. Am Surg 57: 192 36. Jensen JF, Hill JW (1996) Advanced telepresence surgery system development. Stud Health Technol Inform 29: 107±117 37. Moran ME (1993) Stationary and automated laparoscopically assisted technologies. J Laparoendosc Surg 3: 221±227 38. Arezzo A, Ulmer F, Weiss O, Schurr MO, Hamand M, Buess GF (2000) Experimental trial on solo surgery for minimally invasive therapy: Comparison of dierent systems in a phantom model. Surg Endosc 14: 955±959 39. Partin AW, Adams JB, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1995) Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 181: 552±557 40. Schurr MO, Arezzo A, Buess GF (1999) Robotics and system technology for advanced endoscopic procedures: experiences in general surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 16 Suppl 2: S97±105 41. Schurr MO, Buess G, Neisius B, Voges U (2000) Robotics and telemanipulation technologies for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 14: 375±381 42. Lobontiu A (2001) The da Vinci surgical system performing computer-enhanced surgery. Osp Ital Chir 7: 367±372 43. Falk V, Diegler A, Walther T, Autschbach, Mohr FW (2000) Developments in robotic cardiac surgery. Curr Opin Cardiol 15: 378±387 44. Shennib H, Bastawisy A, Mack MJ, Moll FH (1998) Computerassisted telemanipulation: an enabling technology for endoscopic coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 66: 1060±1063 45. Shennib H, Bastawisy, McLoughlin J, Moll F (1999) Robot computer-assisted telemanipulation enhances coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117: 3100±3103 46. Falk V, Diegler A, Walther T, Loscher N, Vogel B, Ulmann C, Rauch T (1999) Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on the heart using a computer enhanced telemanipulation system. Heart Surg Forum 2: 199±205 47. Carpentier A, Louimel D, Aupacie B, Berrebi A, Reliand J (1999) Computer-assisted cardiac surgery [letter]. Lancet 353: 379±380 48. Kappert U, Cichon R, Guliemos V, Schneider J, Schram I, Nicolai J, Tugtekin SM, Schueler S (2000) Robotic-enhanced Dresden technique for minimally invasive bilateral mammary artery grafting. Heart Surg Forum 3: 319±321 49. Mohr FW, Falk V, Diegeler A, Walther T, Gummert JF, Bucerius J, Autschbach R (2001) Computer-enhanced ``robotic'' cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121: 842±853 50. Autschbach R, Onnasch JF, Falk V, Walther T, Kruger M, Schilling LO, Mohr FW (2000) The Leipzig experience with robotic surgery. J Card Surg 15: 82±87 51. Chitwood Jr WR, Nifong LW (2000) Minimally invasive videoscopic mitral valve surgery: the current role of surgical robots. J Card Surg 15: 61±75 52. Himpens J, Leman G, Cadiere GB (1998) Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy [letter]. Surg Endosc 12: 1091 31 32 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 38 53. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Vertruyen M, Favretti F (1999) The world's ®rst obesity surgery performed by a surgeon at a distance. Obes Surg 9: 206±209 54. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Vertruyen M, Bruyns J, Fourtanier G (1999) Nissen fundoplication done by remotely controlled robotic technician. Ann Chir 53: 137±141 55. Cadiere G-B, Himpens J (2001) Nissen fundoplication by robot. Osp Ital Chir 7: 385±392 56. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB (2000) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a feasibility study. Fert Steril 74: 1020±1023 57. Hanisch E, Markus B, Gutt C, Schmandra TC, Encke A (2001) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystecomy and fundoplication Ð initial experience with the da Vinci system. Chirurg 72: 286± 288 58. Cecconi S, Coratti A, Angelini M, Caravaglios G, Savarese L, Parini D, Giulianotti PC (2001) Clinical experience using robotics in a large community hospital. Osp Ital Chir 7: 379±384 59. Meininger D, Byhahn C, Markus BH, Heller K, Westphal K (2001) Total endoscopic Nissen fundoplication with the robotic device ``da Vinci'' in children: hemodynamics, gas exchange, and anesthesthetic management. Anaesthesist 50: 271±275 60. Hashizume M, Sugimachi K, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, Ikeda Y, Takanashi I, Abe R, Koga F, Shinichiro M, Konishi S (2001) da Vinci±assisted total endoscopic procedures in the abdominal surgery [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S131 61. Chapman WHH, Albrecht RJ, Kim VB, Young JA, Nifong LW, Chitwood Jr WR (2001) Computer enhanced robotically assisted telemanipulative cholecystectomy [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S114 62. Young JA, Chapman WHH, Albrecht RJ, Kim VB, Nifong LW, Chitwood Jr WR (2001) Initial patient series with robotic assisted Nissen fundoplication [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S175 63. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Scheider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2001) Computer enhanced ``robotic'' telesurgery: initial experience in foregut surgery [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S148 64. Ozawa S, Furukawa T, Ohgami M, Wakabayashi G, Kitajima M (2001) Robot-assisted laparoscopic anti-re¯ux surgery [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S152 65. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Wolf RK, Michler RE, Ellison EC (2001) Computer-assisted robotic. Heller myotomy: initial case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11: 251±253 66. Talamini MA, Campbell K, Stan®eld C, Are C (2001) Robotic laparoscopic surgery: early lessons learned [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S165 67. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Vertruyen M, Bruyns J, Germany O, Izizaw R (2001) Evaluation of telesurgical (robotic) Nissen fundoplication. Surg Endosc 15: 918±923 68. Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Gulbins H, Meiser B, Brenner P, Reichart B (1999) Early experience with robotic technology for coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 68: 1542±1546 69. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 163: 1643±1649 70. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163: 418±422 71. Abbou C, Salomon L, Hozneck, Antiphon P, Cicco A, Saint F, Alane W, Antiphon P, Chopin DK (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology 55: 630±634 72. Abbou C-C, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Lobontiu A, Saint F, Cicco A, Chopin D (2001) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 165: 1964±1966 73. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Lobontiu A, Saint F, Cicco A, Chopin A (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot (report of a case). Prog Urol 10: 520±523 74. Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menom M, Vallancien G (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol 40: 70±74 75. Rassweiller J, Frede T, Seemann O, Stock C, Sentker L (2001) Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience. Eur Urol 40: 75±83 76. Binder J, Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Probst M, Bickeboller R (2001) Remote-controlled laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using the da Vinci surgical system. Osp Ital Chir 7: 432±436 1401 39 40 41 42 77. Guilklonneau B, Jayet C, Tewari A, Vallancien G (2001) Robot assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 166: 200±201 78. Vanuno D, Horgan S (2001) Robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy. Osp Ital Chir 7: 426±436 79. Cacchione RN, Mungara A, De Turris S, Savino M, Ferzli GS (2001) Laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 193: 454± 457 80. Rassweiler J, Binder J, Frede T (2001) Robotic and telesurgery: will they change our future? Curr Opin Urol 1: 309±320 81. Isgro F, Kiessling A-H, Blome M, Lehman A, Kumle B, Saggau W (2001) Robotic surgery using Zeus microwrist technology: the next generation. Osp Ital Chir 7: 373±378 82. Kiaii B, Boyd WD, Rayman R, Dobkowski WB, Ganapathy S, Jablonsky G, Novick RJ (2000) Robot-assisted computer enhanced closed-chest coronary surgery: preliminary experience using a harmonic scalpel and Zeus. Heart Surg Forum 3: 194±197 83. Boyd WD, Kiaii B, Novick RJ, Rayman R, Ganapathy S, Dobkowski WB, Jablonsky G, McKenzie FN, Menkis AH (2001) RAVECAB: improving outcome in o-pump minimal access surgery with robotic-assistance and video enhancement. Can J Surg 44: 45±50. 84. Ducko CT, Stephenson Jr ER, Sankholkar S, Damiano Jr RJ (1999) Robotically-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: moving towards a completely endoscopic procedure. Heart Surg Forum 2: 29±37 85. Boyd WD, Desai ND, Kiaii B, Rayman R, Menkis AH, McKenzie FN (2000) A Comparison of robot-assisted versus manually constructed endoscopic coronary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 70: 839±842 86. Gulbins H, Boehn DH, Reichenspurner H, Arnold M, Ellgass R (1999) 3D-visualization improves the dry-lab coronary anastomosis using the Zeus robotic system. Heart Surg Forum 2: 318± 324 87. Tabaie HA, Reinbolt JA, Graper WP, Kelly TF, Connor MA (1999) Endoscopic coronary artery bypass graft (ECABG) procedure with robotic-assistance. Heart Surg Forum 2: 310±315 88. Reichenspurner H, Damiano RJ, Mack M, Boehn DH, Gulbins H, Detter C, Meiser B, Ellgass R, Reichart B (1999) Use of the voice-controlled and computer-assisted surgical system ZEUS for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 118: 11±16 89. Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Gulbins H, Detter C, Meiser B, Brenner P, Habazettl H, Reichart B (1999) Early experience with robotic technology for cornary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 68: 1542±1546 90. Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Detter C, Arnold M, Gulbins H, Meiser B, Reichart B (2000) Clinical use of a computer-enhanced surgical robotic system for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 48: 198± 202 91. Boyd WD, Rayman R, Desai ND, Menkis AH, Dobkowski W, Ganapathy S, Jablonsky G, McKenzie FN, Novick RJ (2000) Closed-chest coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart with the use of a computer-enhanced surgical robotic system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 120: 807±809 92. Damiano Jr RJ, Ehrman WJ, Ducko CT, Tabaie HA, Stephenson Jr ER, Kingsley CP, Chambers CE (2000) Initial United States clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119: 77±82 93. Prasad SM, Ducko CT, Stephenson ER, Chambers CE, Damiano Jr RJ (2001) Prospective clinical trial of robotically assisted endoscopic coronary artery grafting with 1-year follow-up. Ann Surg 233: 725±732 94. Luison F, Boyd WD (2000) Three-dimensional video-assisted thoracoscopic pericardiectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 70: 2137± 2138 95. Grossi EA, Lapietra A, Applebaum RM, Ribakove GH, Galloway AC, Bau FG, Ursomanno P, Steinberg BM, Colvin SB (2000) Case report of robotic instrument-enhanced mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 120: 1169±1171 96. Lomanto D, Cheah W-K, So JB, Goh PM (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study. Arch Surg 136: 1106±1108 97. Hollands CM, Dixey LN, Torma MJ (2001) Technical assessment of porcine enteroenterostomy performed with Zeus robotic technology. J Pediatr Surg 36: 1231±1233 98. Hollands CM, Torma MJ, Dixey LN (2001) Laparoscopic choledochotomy and repair using Zeus robotic technology [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S132 99. Margossian H, Garcia-Ruiz A, Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Attaran M, Gagner M (1998) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical uterine horn anastomosis. Fertil Steril 70: 530± 534 100. Margossian H, Falcone T (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and adnexal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11: 161±165 101. Gill IS, Sung GT, Hsu TH, Meraney AM (2000) Robotic remote laparoscopic nephrectomy and adrenalectomy: the initial experience. J Urol 164: 2082±2085 102. Garcia-Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller JH, Steiner CP, Hahn JF (1998) Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch Surg 133: 957±961 103. Nio D, Bemelman A, Kuenzler R, den Boer K, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM (2001) Eciency of manual versus robotic (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized task: a randomized trial [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S150 104. Sweeney T, Rattner D (2001) The Zeus system improves performance of complex laparoscopic skills irrespective of prior training [abstract]. Surg Endosc 15: S164 105. Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L (1999) Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 9: 107±113 106. Guillonneau B, Cappele O, Martinez JB, Navarra S, Vallancien G (2001) Robot assisted laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in humans. J Urol 165: 1078±1081 107. Marescaux J, Smith MK, Folscher D, Jamali F, Malassagne B, Leroy J (2001) Telerobotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial clinical experience with 25 patients. Ann Surg 234: 1±7 108. Satava RM (1995) Virtual reality, telesurgery, and the new world order of medicine. J Image Guid Surg 1: 12±16 43 109. Bellamy Rf, Manings PA, Vayer JS (1986) Epidemiology of trauma: military experience. Ann Emerg Med 15: 1384±1388 110. Bellamy RF (1984) The causes of death in conventional land warfare: implications for combat casualty care research. Mil Med 149: 55±63 111. Satava RM (1997) Virtual reality and telepresence for military medicine. Ann Acad Med Singapore 26: 118±120 112. Bowersox JC, Cordts PR, LaPorta AJ (1998) Use of an intuitive telemanipulator system for remote trauma surgery: an experimental study. J Amer Coll Surg 186: 615±621 113. Remote gallbladder operation spans 3,800 miles (2001) New 44 York Times. Sept 20 114. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, Butner SE, Smith MK (2001) Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 413: 379±380 115. Larkin M (2001) Transatlantic, robot-assisted telesurgery deemed 45 a success. Lancet 358: 1074 116. Stanberry B (2000) Telemedicine: barriers and opportunities in the 21st century. J Intern Med 247: 615±628 117. Frank S (2000) Does telesurgery ®t in with the traditional Dutch legal framework? Med Law 19: 15±30 118. Dent TL (1991) Clinical privileges for laparoscopic general surgery. Am J Surg 161: 399±403 119. SAGES Guidelines (1993) Guidelines for granting of privileges for laparoscopic (peritoneoscopic) general surgery. Surg Endosc 46 7: 67±68 120. Forde KA (1994) Hospital credentialing. In: Ballantyne GH, Leahy PF, Modlin IM (eds) Laparoscopic surgery. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 686±690 121. Hiatt JR, Shabot MM, Phillips EH, Haines RF, Grant TL (1996) Telesurgery: acceptability of compressed video for remote surgical proctoring. Arch Surg 131: 396±401 122. Rosser JC, Wood M, Payne JH, Fullum TM, Lisehorn GB, Rosser LE, Barcia PJ, Savalgi RS (1997) Telementoring: a practical option in surgical training. Surg Endosc 11: 852± 855 1402 123. Lee BR, Caddedu JA, Janetschek G, Schulman P, Docimo SG, Moore RG, Partin AW, Kavoussi LR (1998) International surgical telementoring: our initial experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 50: 41±47 124. Lee BR, Png DJ, Liew L, Fabrizio M, Li MK, Jarrett JW, Kavoussi LR (2000) Laparoscopic telesurgery between the United States and Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 29: 665±668 125. Lee BR, Bisho JT, Janetschek G, Bunyaratevej P, Kamolpronwijit W, Cadeddu JA, Ratchanon S, O'Kelley S, Kavoussi LR (1998) A novel method of surgical instruction: international telementoring. World J Urol 16: 367±370 126. Micali S, Virgili G, Vannozzi E, Grassi N, Jarrett TW, Bauer JJ, Vespasiani G, Kavoussi LR (2000) Feasibility of telementoring between Baltimore (USA) and Rome, Italy. J Endourol 14: 493±496 127. Taniguchi E, Ohashi S (2000) Construction of a regional telementoring network for endoscopic surgery in Japan. IEEE Trans 47 Inf Technol Biomed 4: 195±199 128. Cubano M, Poulouse BK, Talamini MA, Stewart R, Antosek LE, Lentz R, Nibe R, Nutka MF, Mendoza-Sagaon M (1999) Long distance telementoring: a novel tool for laparoscopy aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Surg Endosc 13: 673±678 129. Sawyer MA, Lim RB, Wong SY, Cirangle PT, Birkmire-Peters D (2000) Telementored laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform 70: 302±308 130. Stelzner M, Lynge DC (1998) Telesurgery Ð experience from the USA. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 115: 897±898 131. Ruckauer KD, Nord M, Marescaux J, Farthmann EH (1997) Telesurgery: standards Ð consultations Ð continuing education. Langenbecks Arch Chirg Suppl Kongressbd 114: 644±646 132. Serio G (2000) At the beginning of the third millennium: what kind of surgery, what kind of surgeon? Chir Ital 52: 1±9 133. Marescaux J, Soler L, Mutter D, Leroy J, Vix M, Koehl C, Clement JM (2000) Virtual university applied to telesurgery: from tele-education to tele-manipulation. Stud Health Technol Inform 70: 195±201 134. Rosser Jr JC, Bell RL, Harnett B, Rodas E, Murayama M, Merrell R (1999) Use of mobile low-bandwidth telemedical techniques for extreme telemedicine applications. J Am Coll Surg 189: 397±404 135. Computer Motion Socrates robotic telecollaboration system receives FDA regulatory approval. www.computermotion.com/ pressr153.html