Quality of laparoscopic camera navigation in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: An analysis of surgical videos through a video processing computer software.

Abstract

To compare laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) quality between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). 20 recordings were selected by propensity score matching and subjected to Python® software to generate single frames at one second intervals. For each frame, the pixel where the camera should be centred, based on instrument position, current action (dissection/haemostasis/traction) in the frame, was detected. LCN quality was reviewed by two independent surgeons to evaluate erroneous LCN. RALS had higher incidence of centred views (83.1±4.02% vs. 76.0±2.38%, p<0.05) and a shorter distance between actual and optimal frame centres (123.3±9.8 vs. 144.8±13.9, p<0.05) compared to CLS. Erroneous camera navigations were more frequent in CLS regarding total time of horizontal alignment failure (2.1±2.2 vs. 6.0±5.4min, p=0.063) and number of excessive zoom-in visualization (0.1±0.3 vs. 1.9±1.4, p=0.003). RALS provided higher LCN quality than did CLS, emphasising the benefits of a surgeon-controlled view.