Comparison Of Robots Research Articles

Comparison of Robotics and Minimally Invasive Surgery Using Vacuum Support with Traditional Open Heart Surgery Without Vacuum Support in Open Heart Surgery

Comparison of Robotics and Minimally Invasive Surgery Using Vacuum Support with Traditional Open Heart Surgery Without Vacuum Support in Open Heart Surgery

Comparison of Robotics and Navigation for Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion.

Retrospective cohort. To compare navigation and robotics in terms of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). While robotics has been shown to have advantages like reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation, none of the studies has compared these two modalities in terms of clinical outcomes. Patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF using robotics or navigation and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The robotics and navigation groups were compared for improvement in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), response on global rating change (GRC) scale, and screw-related complication and reoperation rates. 278 patients (143 robotics, 135 navigation) were included. There was no significant difference between the robotics and navigation groups in the baseline demographics, operative variables, and preoperative PROMs. Both groups showed significant improvement in PROMs at <6 and >6 months with no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement between the two groups. Most patients achieved MCID and PASS and reported feeling better on the GRC scale with no significant difference in the proportions between the robotics and navigation groups. The screw-related complication and reoperation rates also showed no significant difference between the two groups. Robotics did not seem to lead to significantly better clinical outcomes compared to navigation following MI-TLIF. While the clinical outcomes may be similar, robotics offers the advantages of reduced radiation exposure, greater screw size, and slightly better accuracy over navigation. These advantages should be considered when determining the utility and cost-effectiveness of robotics in spine surgery. Larger multicenter prospective studies are required in future to further investigate this subject. 3.

Developing collaborative behaviours in elementary school students: a comparison of robotics versus maths teams

ABSTRACT School robotics programmes help students learn science and maths curriculum and acquire needed social skills, such as collaboration. The aim of this observational study was to compare the level of seven variables indicative of student collaborative behaviour (focus, effort/contribution, communication, problem-solving, engagement in inquiry, attitude, and responsibility) exhibited by 48 students in 2 fourth-grade classrooms – one where students participated in a programme called The School Robotics Initiative (SRI) and worked on teams to solve robotics challenge tasks; and the other where students did not participate in the SRI programme but worked on teams to solve maths problems. Findings revealed that the robotics programme was particularly useful in developing problem-solving skills and a positive attitude towards teamwork as compared to maths assignments completed in teams. For future research, a multi-methods design is recommended to more fully measure the impact of robotics programmes on student collaborative behaviour.

Comparison of Robot and open pancreaticodenectomy for the treatment primary duodenal adenocarcinoma

Introduction: Robot surgery is a new method that maintains advantages and overcomes disadvantages of conventional methods, a surgical option for primary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PDA), is a complex procedure that has become increasing popular. However, there is no consensus as to whether this technique should be performed routinely. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of RPD compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Method: Retrospective analysis of all pancreaticoduodenectomies at a single quaternary cancer referral center was performed, From January 2013 to March 2018, 50 RPDs were performed to treat PDA and were compared with 43 OPDs. Patients were also matched based on their demographic data and pathologic diagnosis. Demographic information, intraoperative and postoperative data, pathologic data, and follow-up evaluation data were collected at our center. And then compared using standard statistical methods. Result: The average follow-up time of all patients was 26.86 months (range 1.67 to 70.80 months). There were no significant differences in demography, short-term complications, pathological results or TNM staging between the two groups. The survival time of RPD group was slightly longer than that of OPD group (P=0.036). There were significant differences in oral time, blood loss time and hospital stay between the two groups (P < 0.05). However, there were no differences between the robotic group and the open group in terms of operation time, pancreatic texture, pancreatic anastomosis, vascular reconstruction, reoperation, 30-day readmission, chemotherapy, recurrence or R0 resection. Conclusion: This study found that RPD is a feasible, safe, and effective method for the treatment of PDA compared with OPD , may be a better preferred method for surgeons to choose for he treatment of PDA.

Obez ve Nonobez Hastalarda Robot Yardımlı Radikal Prostatektomi Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Prostat kanseri ve obezite ilişkisi üzerine yapılan birçok çalışmada, obezite ve artan adipozitenin radikal prostatektomi sonrası daha kötü patolojik, onkolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlar ile ilişkili olduğu bulunmuştur. Sürekli artan prostat kanseri insidansı ve obezite oranları düşünüldüğünde, hekimler, prostat kanserine sahip obez hastaların zorlu cerrahi yönetimi ile artan sıklıkla karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Biz de bu çalışmamızda, prostat kanseri sebebiyle robot yardımlı radikal prostatektomi [robot-assissted radical prostatectomy (RARP)] yapılan obez ve nonobez hastaların verilerini karşılaştırmayı ve obezitenin cerrahi sonuçlar üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi hedefledik. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ocak 2016-Ocak 2018 yılları arasında, lokalize prostat kanseri sebebiyle uygulanan RARP operasyonuna ait veriler incelendi. Hastalara ait demografik, preoperatif, peroperatif ve postoperatif veriler kaydedildi. Postoperatif 3, 6 ve 12. ayda IIEF skorları, ayrıca postoperatif sonda çekilmesi sonrasında ve 3, 6, 9 ve 12. ayda kontinans durumları sorgulandı. Hastalar beden kitle indeksi (BKİ) skorlarına göre nonobez (Grup 1: <30 kg/m2), obez (Grup 2: >30 kg/m2) olarak 2 gruba ayrıldı ve sonuçlar karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: RARP yapılan nonobez 73 ve obez 40 hasta çalışmaya dâhil edildi. Ortalama yaş Grup 1 ve Grup 2 için sırasıyla 60,7±5,9 ve 60,3±5,5 olarak tespit edildi ve 2 grup arasında anlamlı fark izlenmedi. BMI Grup 1 ve Grup 2 için sırasıyla 26,1±2,3 ve 31,8±3,4 olarak tespit edildi ve anlamlı fark tespit edildi. Preoperatif IIEF skorları, prostat spesifik antijen seviyeleri, prostat hacimleri arasında 2 grup arasında anlamlı fark tespit edilmedi. Ortalama operasyon ve konsol süreleri nonobez grupta anlamlı daha kısa tespit edildi. Peroperatif kanama miktarları Grup 1 ve Grup 2 için sırasıyla 85,6±23,8 ve 134,6±100,5 olarak tespit edildi ve aralarında anlamlı fark tespit edildi. Obez grubunda hastanede kalış süreleri anlamlı daha uzun olarak tespit edildi. Peroperatif ve postoperatif komplikasyon oranları ve ekstraprostatik yayılım, cerrahi sınır pozitifliği, seminal vezikül invazyonu, biyokimyasal rekürrens oranları gibi onkolojik sonuçlarda anlamlı farklılık izlenmedi. Üç, 6 ve 12. aylarda saptanan potens oranlarında ve sonda çekilmesi sonrasında, 3, 6, 9 ve 12. ayların tümünde 2 grup arasında anlamlı fark saptanmadı. Sonuç: RARP, obez hastalarda nonobez hasta grubuna benzer etkinlik ve güvenlikte uygulanabilir. Bununla birlikte, obez hasta grubunda hasta konforu ve fonksiyonel sonuçların daha kötü olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Comparison of Robotics, Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in the Management of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Comparison of Robotics, Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in the Management of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Invited Commentary on Comparison of Robotics, Functional Electrical Stimulation, and Motor Learning Methods for Treatment of Persistent Upper Extremity Dysfunction After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

In this issue of Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Jessica McCabe and colleagues report findings from their methodologically sound, dose-matched clinical trial in 39 patients beyond 6 months poststroke. In this phase II trial, the effects of 60 treatment sessions, each involving 3.5 hours of intensive practice plus either 1.5 hours of functional electrical stimulation (FES) or a shoulder-arm robotic therapy, were compared with 5 hours of intensive daily practice alone. Although no significant between-group differences were found on the primary outcome measure of Arm Motor Ability Test and the secondary outcome measure of Fugl-Meyer Arm motor score, 10% to 15% within-group therapeutic gains were on the Arm Motor Ability Test and Fugl-Meyer Arm. These gains are clinically meaningful for patients with stroke. However, the underlying mechanisms that drive these improvements remain poorly understood. The approximately $1000 cost reduction per patient calculated for the use of motor learning (ML) methods alone or combined with FES, compared with the combination of ML and shoulder-arm robotics, further emphasizes the need for cost considerations when making clinical decisions about selecting the most appropriate therapy for the upper paretic limb in patients with chronic stroke.

Comparison of Robotics, Functional Electrical Stimulation, and Motor Learning Methods for Treatment of Persistent Upper Extremity Dysfunction After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveTo compare response to upper-limb treatment using robotics plus motor learning (ML) versus functional electrical stimulation (FES) plus ML versus ML alone, according to a measure of complex functional everyday tasks for chronic, severely impaired stroke survivors. DesignSingle-blind, randomized trial. SettingMedical center. ParticipantsEnrolled subjects (N=39) were >1 year postsingle stroke (attrition rate=10%; 35 completed the study). InterventionsAll groups received treatment 5d/wk for 5h/d (60 sessions), with unique treatment as follows: ML alone (n=11) (5h/d partial- and whole-task practice of complex functional tasks), robotics plus ML (n=12) (3.5h/d of ML and 1.5h/d of shoulder/elbow robotics), and FES plus ML (n=12) (3.5h/d of ML and 1.5h/d of FES wrist/hand coordination training). Main Outcome MeasuresPrimary measure: Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT), with 13 complex functional tasks; secondary measure: upper-limb Fugl-Meyer coordination scale (FM). ResultsThere was no significant difference found in treatment response across groups (AMAT: P≥.584; FM coordination: P≥.590). All 3 treatment groups demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvement in response to treatment (AMAT and FM coordination: P≤.009). A group treatment paradigm of 1:3 (therapist/patient) ratio proved feasible for provision of the intensive treatment. No adverse effects. ConclusionsSeverely impaired stroke survivors with persistent (>1y) upper-extremity dysfunction can make clinically and statistically significant gains in coordination and functional task performance in response to robotics plus ML, FES plus ML, and ML alone in an intensive and long-duration intervention; no group differences were found. Additional studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of these methods in the clinical setting.

Robotics: State of the Art and Future Challenges (G. Bekey, et al; 2008) [On the Shelf

This book presents the results of an assessment of the state of robotics in Japan, South Korea, Western Europe, and Australia and a comparison of robotics R&A in these countries with those in the United States.

A comparison of robot and human performances for simple assembly tasks

The main objective of this study was to compare human and robot performances for a simple assembly operation by conducting a time study. Furthermore, a cost analysis of implementing a robotic work station was carried out. The task performed consisted of assembling two cubes connected in the center by a metal rod. The cubes were continously fed by two gravitational chutes and placed in a finished part bin after being assembled. Two work stations, one robotic (consisting of two robots) and one human, were built in order to achieve the objective of this study. Ten male volunteers participated in the experiment. Each person completed 100 work cycles. An equal number of work cycles was completed by the two robots. The results confirmed that while robots have no on-the-job learning, humans do. It was also observed that robots may be slower than humans and installing and operating a robotic work station may not be as profitable as people think. From the safety viewpoint, however, one may be able to justify the use of robots.

The language of robotics: Use and abuse of personification

Many writers in the robotics field personify robots. By “humanizing” these computer-controlled machines, they attempt to make a difficult and potent technology understandable to potential users in labor and management. However, the comparison of robots to humans has often made the technology fearful to would-be users. By judiciously using personification and by becoming aware of the awesome power of language, robotics experts can disseminate their research more effectively to nontechnical audiences.