Comparison of Task Performance of the Camera-Holder Robots EndoAssist and Aesop

Nebot, Pedro Ballester; Jain, Yatin; Haylett, K R; Stone, R.; McCloy, R F

doi:10.1097/00129689-200310000-00010

Cited by 46 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an additional time delay in this control mode as it takes two levels of voice commands for the surgeon to move the Aesop arm. Every command adds at least two more seconds to the task time, assuming that they are recognized without any voice recognition errors, which is not always the case [3,18]. As a result, strategies that involve multiple zooms (e.g., the group who zoomed twice) would be penalized more often in terms of time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Aesop arm was measured to take 3.5 s to go from the narrow FOV to the wide FOV. This mode of control has been shown to be the fastest among the options available for controlling Aesop [3,4] and thus represents the bestcase scenario for the zoom condition. Subjects were allowed to practice for 15 min under both monitor conditions until they were ready to begin the test.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of a supplemental wide field of view versus a single field of view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was attributed to increased accuracy of movement in EndoAssist in comparison to the voice recognition errors evident while operating AESOP. 10 On the other device, the surgeons were slightly felt fatigue with use of the PMAT for laparoscopic procedures which took more time and prompting for motion adjustment was required repeatedly for the cases studied. 4 PARAMIS robot has some …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Camera-holding Robotic Device in Laparoscopy Surgery

Rahman¹,

Mishra²

2011

WJOLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The inconvenience of laparoscopic operations lies mainly in the difficulties in mutual understanding between the surgeon and the camera assistant who maneuvers the laparoscope according to the surgeon's instructions. Another problem arises when the operation has to be performed for many hours. In this case, the camera image tends to become unsteady due to fatigue of the camera assistant. The self camera-control by the surgeon gives more stability of the laparoscopic image. A robotic camera assistant, directly under surgeon's control, can help the surgeon control the view better. This review is limited only in the robotic camera holder to replace the assistant camera holder in laparoscopy surgery. Materials and methods:Several types of the camera-holding robotic devices, such as the AESOP, EndoAssist, PMAT and PARAMIS were reviewed respectively.Discussion: Most of the camera-holding robotic devices have the advantages, such as elimination of the fatigue of the assistant who holds the camera, elimination of fine motor tremor and small inaccurate movements, delivery of a steady and tremor-free image, nondependency on camera operator, reduced cost of surgery and reduced number of highly skilled staff. Some of them have additional advantages and disadvantages depend on their uniqueness. Conclusion:There is no fundamental difference between the operation performed with and without the devices, but the machines do contribute to certain aspects of the operations and may help to overcome some of the difficulties encountered in these complex laparoscopy procedures. Unavailability and variability in quality of human camera-holders should not be an obstacle to performing satisfactory laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, some form of standardization of assistance is required and laparoscope-holding systems are a first step in this direction.Keywords: Camera-holding robotic device, Robotic camera assistant, Camera holder, Laparoscopy surgery, AESOP, EndoAssist, PMAT, PARAMIS. REVIEW ARTICLE ABSTRACT BACKGROUND

show abstract

“…published advantages include: [1] elimination of fatigue of the assistant who holds the camera, [2] elimination of fine motor tremor and small inaccurate movements and [3] delivery of a steady and tremor-free image (Allaf et al, 1998& Nebot et al, 2003. The EndoAssist® is a novel and unique robotic camera holder (EndoAssist®; Armstrong Healthcare, High Wycombe, Bucks, UK) (Fig.…”

Section: Medical Robotics 342mentioning

confidence: 99%