title: Comparative study of human and robotic camera control in laparoscopic biliary and colon surgery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Despite the growing clinical use of active robotic camera holders there is still a lack of clinical feasibility studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  We compared the use of a voice controlled robotic camera holder (AESOP 3000, Computer Motion, Goleta, California) to a human camera holder in a series of laparoscopic cholecystectomies and colectomies. Compliance with AESOP, abnormal operative events or complications, operative time, and the duration of hospitalization were prospectively recorded and compared to data recorded before the introduction of the robotic system.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compliance with AESOP was good. There were no abnormal operative events, no differences in operative time, complications, or the mean duration of hospitalization between the patients operated with a robotic or a human camera holder.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of a robotic camera holder does not alter the length of the operative procedure, the duration of hospitalization, or postoperative morbidity. It is a safe and feasible approach to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or colectomy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Antoine Béclère Hospital, University Paris XI, Clamart, France. jm.proske@charite.de
authors.forename: Jan Martin
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Proske
authors.forename: Ibrahim
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Dagher
authors.forename: Dominique
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Franco
mesh_terms: D002763:Cholecystectomy / Q000379:methods*; D003082:Colectomy / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D007902:Length of Stay; D010781:Photography / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012371:Robotics / Q000295:instrumentation; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome