The document discusses robotic surgery, detailing its history, working principles, advantages, and disadvantages. It emphasizes the evolution of robotic systems from the late 1980s to recent technologies, outlining the various types of surgical systems and their functionalities. A case study highlights a minimally invasive liver resection as an example of successful robotic surgery while also addressing safety concerns and the need for further evaluation of cost-effectiveness.

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