Robotic camera holder as good as expert camera holder: a randomized crossover trial.

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the impact of robotic camera holder (RCH) and human camera holder (HCH) oil product quality and procedure effectiveness of a simulated laparoscopic procedure. Methods: This was a prospective randomized crossover trial including voluntary surgical residents. Block randomization generated RCH-HCH or HCH-RCH sequence allocation. The task was suturing a duodenal perforation on foam stomach with intracorporeally knot tying in a simulator. The camera was operated by the same robot and same expert. Product quality was measured by accuracy error, tissue damage, sliding knot, and leak. Procedure effectiveness was measured by operating time, nongoal directed actions, and dangerous actions. Kendall's coefficient tau_b was used for interrater reliability between 2 blinded assessors. Results: Forty-four Subjects performed their tasks as allocated. Product quality and procedure effectiveness were similar when first attempt of task was compared with the repeat task by same subject ignoring the type of camera holder. There was no evidence of significant unequal carryover effect when comparison was stratified by RCH-HCH or HCH-RCH sequences. There were no differences in product quality and procedure effectiveness when RCH was compared with HCH. Coefficient taU_b was >= 0.80 for all but dangerous actions (0.72, P = 0.08). Conclusions: RCH and HCH had similar impact on product quality and procedure effectiveness of simulated laparoscopic procedure.