Robotic systems can successfully replace conventionally laproscopic instruments. Robotic Technology offers safe and effective operations

1. A Technical Seminar
On

2. CONTENT
 Introduction
 History
 Working principle
 Advantages & Disadvantages
 Case Study
 Conclusion
 Reference

3. INTRODUCTION
 Robotic surgery: Computer
assisted surgery either by
Telemanipulator or
Computer control.
 Robotic surgery is “Robot
assisted” surgery, surgeon
decides and gives
commands robot performs.

4. LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL SURGERY
 Large incisions.
 Large operation time.
 Surgical marks, scars.
 Long recovery time.
 Blood loss.

5. HISTORY
 In 1988 a robot, The PUMA 560, was used to
place a needle for a brain biopsy using CT
guidance.
 In 1987 robotics was used in the first
Laparoscopic surgery.
 In 1992, The PROBOT, developed at Imperial
College London, was used to perform prostatic
surgery.

6. HISTORY
 The ROBODOC from Integrated Surgical
Systems was introduced in 1992 to mill out
precise fittings in the femur for hip
replacement.
 The da Vinci Surgical System- 2000
 ZEUS Robotic Surgical Systems- 2001
 Neuro Arm- 2010

7. WORKING PRINCIPLE

8. CLASSIFICATION OF ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEMS
1. Supervisory-controlled systems
2. Telesurgical system
3. Shared-control system

9. SUPERVISORY-CONTROLLED SYSTEM
 Most automated type
 Preparation is needed
before operation.
 There is a defined
sequence of operations.
 Robot can’t make
adjustments.
 Must be supervised.

10. TELESURGICAL SYSTEMS
 Human directed the
motion of the robot.
 Work at a smaller
scale than
conventional surgery
permits.

11. SHARED-CONTROL SYSTEM
 Shared-control robotic systems
aid surgeons during surgery, but
the human does most of the
work.
 Unlike the other robotic
systems, the surgeons must
operate the surgical instruments
themselves.
 The robotic system monitors
the surgeon's performance and
provides stability and support
through active constraint.
 Active constraint is a concept
that relies on defining regions
on a patient as one of four
possibilities: safe, close,
boundary or forbidden.

12. AESOP ROBOTIC SYSTEM
 The AESOP system
employs the
assistance of the
Automated Endoscopic
System for optical
position.
 The AESOP robotic
surgical system was
very complex. So that
it cannot be used in
operating rooms.

13. OVERVIEW

14. SURGICAL SYSTEM FEATURES
 Video console
 Primary video monitor – 23”W * 23”D
 Flat panel monitor
 Surgeon control console
 Touch screen monitor
 PC and HERNES control
centers
 Instrument reusability

15.  Wide array if instruments
 Quick instruments changes
 Rapid setup less, then 15 minutes
 visualization

16. ADVANTAGES
IN-SURGERY
POST SURGERY
 Surgeons have enhanced view
 Easier to attach nerve endings
 Surgeons tire less easily
 Fewer doctors required in
operating rooms
 In turn, cheaper for hospitals.
 Smaller risk of infection
 Less anesthesia required
 Less loss of blood
 Less scarring.
 Faster recovery time.
 Tiny incisions.
 0% Transfusion rate.
 Immediate urinary control.
 Significantly shorter return to
normal activities ( 1-2 weeks).
 Equal Cancer Cure Rate.
 Less post operative pain.

17. DISADVANTAGES
 The question of safety.
 The cost.
 Success of surgery depends on skill of physician.
not equipment .
 High maintenance cost.

18. CASE STUDY
In April 2008, Prof. pier cristoforo
giulianotti and his team performed the world’s
first minimally invasive liver resection for
“living donor transplantation”, removing 60%
of patient’s liver, with less pain than surgery
due to some five puncture holes and not scar
by a surgeon.

20. CONCLUSION
 Robotic systems can successfully replace
conventionally laproscopic instruments.
 Robotic Technology offers safe and effective
operations
 Cost effectiveness needs to be further evaluated.
 Safer since it eliminates possible human errors.

21. REFERENCE
1. Estey, EP (2009). "Robotic prostatectomy: The new standard of care or a
marketing success?". Canadian Urological Association Journal 3 (6): 488–
90. PMC2792423. PMID 2001998.
2. O'Toole, M. D.; Bouazza-Marouf, K.; Kerr, D.; Gooroochurn, M.;
Vloeberghs, M. (2009). "A methodology for design and appraisal of
surgical robotic systems". Robotica 28 (2): 297–310.
3. Weinstein, G. S.; o’Malley, B. W.; Snyder, W.; Sherman, E.; Quon, H.
(2007). "Transoral Robotic Surgery: Radical Tonsillectomy". Archives of
Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 133 (12): 1220–1226.
doi:10.1001/archotol.133.12.1220.
4. Kolata, Gina (13 February 2010). "Results Unproven, Robotic Surgery
Wins ConvertZ". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
5. Finkelstein J; Eckersberger E, Sadri H, Taneja SS, Lepor H, Djavan B
(2010). "Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic
Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience". Reviews in Urology 12
(1): 35–43.

22. THANK YOU