Cited by 9Colorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesSurgical Simulation and Training

RoboLap cooperative technique for lymphadenectomy in robotic surgery for right‐sided colon cancer—A video vignette

Yamamoto, Takehito, Fukuda, Meiki, Yakushigawa, Takaaki, Okuchi, Yoshihisa, Taura, Kojiro, Terajima, Hiroaki·2024·Colorectal Disease

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of combining robotic and laparoscopic techniques in various surgical procedures. These include robotic distal gastrectomy [1], total gastrectomy [2], robotic hepatectomy utilizing a laparoscopic cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator [3, 4], and hysteroscopy using robotic and laparoscopic instruments [5]. However, evidence regarding their effectiveness in colorectal surgery is limited. Video 1 presents the RoboLap cooperative technique (RLT) for ensuring safety when performing lymphadenectomy in robotic ileocaecal resection. This approach employs two surgeons. The first operator (robotic operator) controls the robotic arms and maintains a clear view of the dissection field. The second operator (laparoscopic operator) is positioned next to the patient and performs lymph node dissection using an ultrasonically activated device (USAD; Harmonic 1100). The USAD offers several advantages: (1) precise dissection due to the fine shape of the device tips; (2) effective sealing of lymphatic vessels, resulting in a consistently dry surgical field and minimized risk of postoperative lymphatic leakage; and (3) improved access to the surgical trunk from the lower left abdominal port, which is crucial for right-sided colon cancer. In contrast, the multijoint function of robotic forceps is advantageous in areas where laparoscopic linear forceps struggle due to limitations on tangential movement. Furthermore, the stable view provided by the robot…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/codi.17122

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hybrid mechanical-electronic systems offer a synergistic advantage over purely mechanical systems, which lack adaptability, and electronic-only approaches prone to hardware limits.

    “Compared to purely mechanical systems, which lack adaptability, or electronic-only approaches prone to hardware limits, hybrid systems offer a synergistic advantage, as seen in manufacturing with dual-drive redundancy reducing motor power [41] and surgery with efficient laparoscopic outcomes [31].”

Authors
Yamamoto, T., Fukuda, M., Yakushigawa, T., Okuchi, Y., Taura, K., & Terajima, H.
Affiliations
Kitano Hospital (JP)
Corresponding author
Yamamoto, Takehito
Venue
Colorectal Disease
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-08-03
Volume
26
Issue
9
Pages
1779-1781
ISSN
  • 1462-8910 (ISSN-L)
  • 1463-1318
OpenAlex
W4401290555
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Colorectal Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (21K16487)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
robotic surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, lymph node dissection, right-sided colon cancer, ileocecal resection, harmonic scalpel, superior mesenteric vein, colorectal surgery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review