Cholecystitis; GallstoneEarly Phase 1NCT04803487
Robotic Cholecystectomy Using the Chinese Micro Hand S Robot: A Controlled, Randomized, Prospective Clinical Study
A Early Phase 1 study testing robot-assisted cholecystectomy in people with Cholecystitis; Gallstone, run by The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
A single-blinded, prospective randomized parallel controlled clinical trial was designed and conducted from December 2019 to November 2020. 82 patients with a gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled in this study. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Cholecystitis; Gallstone
- What is being tested?
- robot-assisted cholecystectomy
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 82 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 3 Dec 2019to 3 Dec 2020
- Phase
- Early Phase 1
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- from 18 to 65 years old;
- patients with acute or chronic cholecystitis, gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases;
- BMI was 18-30 kg/m2;
- the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was I, II, or III.
Who cannot join
- women in pregnancy or lactation;
- A history of epilepsy or mental illness;
- Previous relevant operation history;
- Patients with a severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III-IV and pulmonary insufficiency who cannot tolerate the operation;
- Liver cirrhosis, kidney failure and other severe liver and kidney dysfunction (ALT and AST exceeded 3 times of the upper limit of normal value, Cr exceeded 1.5 times of the upper limit of normal value).
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University
Qingdao, Shandong, 266003
About this study
Official title: Robotic Cholecystectomy Using the Newly Developed Chinese Robotic Surgical System-Micro Hand S: A Controlled, Randomized, Prospective Clinical Study
A single-blinded, prospective randomized parallel controlled clinical trial was designed and conducted from December 2019 to November 2020. 82 patients with a gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled in this study. Finally, 82 patients were randomly divided into the Micro Hand S surgical robot group and the da Vinci surgical robot group. Standard robot-assisted transabdominal cholecystectomy was conducted using the Micro Hand S robot or the da Vinci robot. The success rate of operation, assembly time, operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, time to first flatus, postoperative pain, comprehensive complication index, resident time and patient satisfaciton were recorded. The aim of the study is to determine whether the newly developed Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot results in non-inferiority outcomes in cholecystectomy compared with the prevalent da Vinci robot.
Read the detailed description
Objective: To determine whether the newly developed Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot results in non-inferiority outcomes in cholecystectomy compared with the prevalent da Vinci robot.
Design: A single-blinded, prospective randomized parallel controlled clinical trial was designed and conducted from December 2019 to November 2020. The study was conducted in an academic hospital. 82 patients with a gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled in this study. Finally, 82 patients were randomly divided into the Micro Hand S surgical robot group and the da Vinci surgical robot group.
Interventions: Standard robot-assisted transabdominal cholecystectomy was conducted using the Micro Hand S robot or the da Vinci robot.
Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was the success rate of operation. Surgical success was defined as that the surgical procedures were completed by the experimental or control product without transferring to non-robotic surgery. Secondary outcomes included assembly time, operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, time to first flatus, postoperative pain, comprehensive complication index, resident time and patient satisfaction.
Background:
Cholecystectomy is one of the most common operations in general surgery, with about half a million patients getting cholecystectomy each year in the United States. In the 1990s, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), as a new technology, greatly improved the traditional open abdominal surgery, of which defects are known as the big wound and long time to recover. Today, nearly 90% of cholecystectomy are performed laparoscopically. Previous studies have shown that laparoscopic cholecystectomy may reduce postoperative pain, shorten the hospital stay, and save the overall cost in hospital, which has become the standard operation for the treatment of gallbladder disease. In recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become more and more widely used in general surgery because of its advantages of 3D visions, high magnification, tremor suppression, and precise manipulation. According to a reported retrospective study, the da Vinci robot-assisted cholecystectomy showed excellent operation security, which can achieve the same therapeutic effect as the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. But studies also reported that the increased cost may be the main problem of the da Vinci robot-assisted cholecystectomy.
The Micro Hand S surgical robot is a new generation of Chinese independently developed surgical robot system. Apart from the flexibility and intelligence in operation manipulation, the Micro Hand S surgical robot also has the advantages of small size, portable equipment, low maintenance costs and outstanding equipment compatibility. After initial preclinical trials, the Micro Hand S surgical robot has been successfully applied in clinic, and proved security and feasibility in various gastrointestinal surgery.
Since 2019, investigators in this group have designed and taken up research to assist laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the Micro Hand S surgical robot, which is noted as a prospective, randomized, single-blind, and parallel controlled clinical trial. The primary purpose of this study is to determine whether the newly developed Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot results in non-inferiority outcomes in cholecystectomy compared with the prevalent da Vinci robot.
Method:
The study was designed as a single-blind prospective randomized clinical trial since it is inevitable for the surgeon to know what kind of robot to use during the operation. After obtaining the approval of the Ethics Review Committee and other relevant institutions of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, a total of 82 patients were included in this study from December 2019 to November 2020. Finally, 82 patients were randomly divided into the Micro Hand S robot group and the da Vinci robot group. All enrolled patients were fully informed and signed the informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to each group in a 1:1 ratio, and information of the grouping and intervention measures were not available to patients. Patients of each group were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and complications to reduce confounding intervention factors.
Surgical procedure:
The patient was placed in the supine position after general anesthesia. The Veress needle was inserted at 2cm below the umbilicus (point A) to establish the CO2 artificial pneumoperitoneum. A 12mm trocar was inserted into the abdominal cavity and the pneumoperitoneum tube was connected to the trocar. The intra-abdominal pressure was set at 11-13mmHg, and then the preheated three-dimensional laparoscope and cold-light source were placed into the abdominal cavity through the trocar. Then a thorough examination was taken on the intended trocar points and the surgical area. After adjusting the patient with a Trendelenburg position inclined to the left, 10.5mm magnetic trocars were respectively placed at 2-3cm medial side of the right anterior axillary line, 8-10cm below the costal margin (point B); and 2-3cm below the costal margin of the left mid-clavicular line (point C); and were connected to the robotic arms No. 1 and 2. Besides, a 10mm trocar were placed at point D (lateral inferior of the line connecting point A and C) as the auxiliary channel. The surgeon held the neck of the gallbladder or Hartmann's Pouch with bipolar forceps, and pulled the neck to the right upper to open the serosal layer of the cystic duct. The cystic duct and the cystic artery were then separated by blunt dissection so as to distinguish the common bile duct, hepatic common bile duct, and cystic duct. Clamp and cut off the cystic duct near the gallbladder's neck with a Hemo-lock clamp. The cystic artery was found medial posterior side of the cystic duct. Clamp and cut off the cystic artery with Hemo-lock clamp. Pull the gallbladder's neck upward and remove the gallbladder by anterograde resection with an ultrasonic knife. The assistant assisted in dragging the gallbladder and the liver bed to keep a certain tension. The intact gallbladder was put into the specimen bag and removed. Bleeding and bile leakage was carefully checked, and the gallbladder bed was coagulated. The operating instruments were withdrawn from the patient's abdominal cavity after checking the instruments and the gauze. The pneumoperitoneum was exsufflated and the incisions were closed.
During the operation, the assembly time, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, operation success rate, and the adjacent organ and vascular injury caused by the failure of the tested system were recorded. Pain score was analyzed 24±2 hours after the surgery. The vital signs (temperature, pulse, respiration, blood pressure) were measured on the 3rd day postoperatively. Meanwhile, the routine blood test (red blood cells, white blood cells and neutrophils, platelet, hemoglobin), liver and renal function (ALT, AST, TP, ALB, GLU, TBIL, BUN, and CREA), the electrolyte (K, Na, Cl, Ca), blood sugar, and color ultrasound of liver, gallbladder, pancreas and spleen were checked. Operating surgeons filled in the satisfaction questionnaire postoperatively. Furthermore, the patients' postoperative condition changes, postoperative medication, the first postoperative anal exhaust, postoperative complications, and resident time were also recorded. All the patients were followed up by telephone at 30±5 days postoperatively to evaluate the incidncee of adverse events.
- Conditions
- Cholecystitis; Gallstone
- Being tested
- robot-assisted cholecystectomy
- Keywords
- Surgical robot, Robot-assisted cholecystectomy
- Medical subject headings
- Cholecystitis, Gallstones
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
robot-assisted cholecystectomyOther
cholecystectomy was performed for patients using the Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot.
robot-assisted cholecystectomyOther
cholecystectomy was performed for patients using the da Vinci surgical robot.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| the Micro Hand S robot group | Experimental | 41 patients were randomly allocated in the Micro Hand S robot group and cholecystectomy was performed using the Micro Hand S robot. Receives: Other: robot-assisted cholecystectomy |
| the da Vinci robot group | Other | 41 patients were randomly allocated in the da Vinci robot group and cholecystectomy was performed using the da Vinci robot. Receives: Other: robot-assisted cholecystectomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Success rate of the surgery
the proportion of patients with successful operation in all participating patients in the experimental or control group
Measured: after the study is completed, up to 14 months
Secondary outcomes (5)
assembly time
The assembly time extends from the time the robot starts to the time the trocar is connected to the robot arm.
Measured: after the robot is assembled, all data will be collected within 14 months
operation time
The operation time extends from the time the robot assembles are finished, and the operation begins till the incision is sutured.
Measured: after the procedure is completed, all data will be collected within 14 months
blood loss
Intraoperative blood loss is the total amount of blood loss from the beginning of the operation (after the robot was assembled) to the incision is sutured.
Measured: after the procedure is completed, all data will be collected within 14 months
Time to first flatus
Time to first flatus is the patients' first anal exhaust after the operation.
Measured: after the intestinal function revival of the patients, all data will be collected within 14 months
The hospital stay
The hospital stay is the total number of days from the admission to the discharge of patients.
Measured: from the admission to the discharge, all data will be collected within 14 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Mar 2021
- Study start3 Dec 2019
- Primary completion3 Nov 2020
- Study completion3 Dec 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (20)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cholecystitis; GallstoneStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Early Phase 1
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- random controlled trial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 82 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Haitao Niu, MD, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University
- Investigators
- Weidong Guo, MD, Study chair, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04803487
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SDWG-NST600S-CT
- Status last verified
- Mar 2021
- First submitted
- 12 Mar 2021
- Last updated
- 18 Mar 2021
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Case record form of the patients will be shared within six months after the trial complete
Publications
Asad U, Wang CF, Jones MW. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. 2025 Jul 2. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448145/
PubMed 28846328Abdel Raheem A, Troya IS, Kim DK, Kim SH, Won PD, Joon PS, Hyun GS, Rha KH. Robot-assisted Fallopian tube transection and anastomosis using the new REVO-I robotic surgical system: feasibility in a chronic porcine model. BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):604-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13517. Epub 2016 May 26.
PubMed 27123543Alli VV, Yang J, Xu J, Bates AT, Pryor AD, Talamini MA, Telem DA. Nineteen-year trends in incidence and indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the NY State experience. Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1651-1658. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5154-9. Epub 2016 Sep 7.
PubMed 27604366Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien PA. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg. 2008 Jun;247(6):987-93. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318172501f.
PubMed 18520226Csikesz NG, Singla A, Murphy MM, Tseng JF, Shah SA. Surgeon volume metrics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Aug;55(8):2398-405. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-1035-6. Epub 2009 Nov 13.
PubMed 19911275Fanfani F, Monterossi G, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, Gueli Alletti S, Costantini B, Gallotta V, Selvaggi L, Restaino S, Scambia G. The new robotic TELELAP ALF-X in gynecological surgery: single-center experience. Surg Endosc. 2016 Jan;30(1):215-21. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4187-9. Epub 2015 Apr 4.
PubMed 25840895Heemskerk J, van Dam R, van Gemert WG, Beets GL, Greve JW, Jacobs MJ, Bouvy ND. First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci Surgical System in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg. 2005;22(6):426-31. doi: 10.1159/000091445. Epub 2006 Feb 10.
PubMed 16479111Huang Y, Chua TC, Maddern GJ, Samra JS. Robotic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis. Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):628-636. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.061. Epub 2016 Dec 20.
PubMed 28011011Li J, Zhu S, Juan J, Yi B. Preliminary exploration of robotic complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer with the domestically produced Chinese minimally invasive Micro Hand S surgical robot system. Int J Med Robot. 2020 Dec;16(6):1-8. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2148. Epub 2020 Sep 11.
PubMed 32865308Luo D, Liu Y, Zhu H, Li X, Gao W, Li X, Zhu S, Yu X. The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2020 Aug;34(8):3368-3374. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07107-z. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
PubMed 31482355Melling N, Barr J, Schmitz R, Polonski A, Miro J, Ghadban T, Wodack K, Izbicki J, Zani S, Perez D. Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system. J Robot Surg. 2019 Jun;13(3):495-500. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0877-3. Epub 2018 Sep 27.
PubMed 30264180Morelli L, Di Franco G, Lorenzoni V, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Caprili G, Mosca F, Turchetti G, Cuschieri A. Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience. Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1858-1869. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
PubMed 30251144Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J, Mottrie A, Goezen AS, Stolzenburg JU, Rha KH, Schurr M, Kaouk J, Patel V, Dasgupta P, Liatsikos E. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2017 Dec;120(6):822-841. doi: 10.1111/bju.13851. Epub 2017 Apr 22.
PubMed 28319324Strosberg DS, Nguyen MC, Muscarella P 2nd, Narula VK. A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1436-1441. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5134-0. Epub 2016 Aug 5.
PubMed 27495346Su M, Wang J, Li Z, Luo Z, Yuan S, Chen G, Liao Z, He C. [A New Micro-traumatic Laparoscopic Surgery Robot System]. Zhongguo Yi Liao Qi Xie Za Zhi. 2019 May 30;43(3):165-169. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-7104.2019.03.003. Chinese.
PubMed 31184070
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Mar 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Robotic Cholecystectomy Using the Newly Developed Chinese Robotic Surgical System-Micro Hand S: A Controlled, Randomized, Prospective Clinical Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04803487
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SDWG-NST600S-CT
- Conditions
- Cholecystitis; Gallstone
- Keywords
- Surgical robot, Robot-assisted cholecystectomy
- Phase
- Early Phase 1
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 82 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 3 Nov 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 3 Dec 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Mar 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
A single-blinded, prospective randomized parallel controlled clinical trial was designed and conducted from December 2019 to November 2020. 82 patients with a gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled in this study. Finally, 82 patients were randomly divided into the Micro Hand S surgical robot group and the da Vinci surgical robot group. Standard robot-assisted transabdominal cholecystectomy was conducted using the Micro Hand S robot or the da Vinci robot. The success rate of operation, assembly time, operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, time to first flatus, postoperative pain, comprehensive complication index, resident time and patient satisfaciton were recorded. The aim of the study is to determine whether the newly developed Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot results in non-inferiority outcomes in cholecystectomy compared with the prevalent da Vinci robot.
Detailed description
Objective: To determine whether the newly developed Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot results in non-inferiority outcomes in cholecystectomy compared with the prevalent da Vinci robot.
Design: A single-blinded, prospective randomized parallel controlled clinical trial was designed and conducted from December 2019 to November 2020. The study was conducted in an academic hospital. 82 patients with a gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases were enrolled in this study. Finally, 82 patients were randomly divided into the Micro Hand S surgical robot group and the da Vinci surgical robot group.
Interventions: Standard robot-assisted transabdominal cholecystectomy was conducted using the Micro Hand S robot or the da Vinci robot.
Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was the success rate of operation. Surgical success was defined as that the surgical procedures were completed by the experimental or control product without transferring to non-robotic surgery. Secondary outcomes included assembly time, operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, time to first flatus, postoperative pain, comprehensive complication index, resident time and patient satisfaction.
Background:
Cholecystectomy is one of the most common operations in general surgery, with about half a million patients getting cholecystectomy each year in the United States. In the 1990s, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), as a new technology, greatly improved the traditional open abdominal surgery, of which defects are known as the big wound and long time to recover. Today, nearly 90% of cholecystectomy are performed laparoscopically. Previous studies have shown that laparoscopic cholecystectomy may reduce postoperative pain, shorten the hospital stay, and save the overall cost in hospital, which has become the standard operation for the treatment of gallbladder disease. In recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become more and more widely used in general surgery because of its advantages of 3D visions, high magnification, tremor suppression, and precise manipulation. According to a reported retrospective study, the da Vinci robot-assisted cholecystectomy showed excellent operation security, which can achieve the same therapeutic effect as the conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. But studies also reported that the increased cost may be the main problem of the da Vinci robot-assisted cholecystectomy.
The Micro Hand S surgical robot is a new generation of Chinese independently developed surgical robot system. Apart from the flexibility and intelligence in operation manipulation, the Micro Hand S surgical robot also has the advantages of small size, portable equipment, low maintenance costs and outstanding equipment compatibility. After initial preclinical trials, the Micro Hand S surgical robot has been successfully applied in clinic, and proved security and feasibility in various gastrointestinal surgery.
Since 2019, investigators in this group have designed and taken up research to assist laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the Micro Hand S surgical robot, which is noted as a prospective, randomized, single-blind, and parallel controlled clinical trial. The primary purpose of this study is to determine whether the newly developed Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot results in non-inferiority outcomes in cholecystectomy compared with the prevalent da Vinci robot.
Method:
The study was designed as a single-blind prospective randomized clinical trial since it is inevitable for the surgeon to know what kind of robot to use during the operation. After obtaining the approval of the Ethics Review Committee and other relevant institutions of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, a total of 82 patients were included in this study from December 2019 to November 2020. Finally, 82 patients were randomly divided into the Micro Hand S robot group and the da Vinci robot group. All enrolled patients were fully informed and signed the informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to each group in a 1:1 ratio, and information of the grouping and intervention measures were not available to patients. Patients of each group were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and complications to reduce confounding intervention factors.
Surgical procedure:
The patient was placed in the supine position after general anesthesia. The Veress needle was inserted at 2cm below the umbilicus (point A) to establish the CO2 artificial pneumoperitoneum. A 12mm trocar was inserted into the abdominal cavity and the pneumoperitoneum tube was connected to the trocar. The intra-abdominal pressure was set at 11-13mmHg, and then the preheated three-dimensional laparoscope and cold-light source were placed into the abdominal cavity through the trocar. Then a thorough examination was taken on the intended trocar points and the surgical area. After adjusting the patient with a Trendelenburg position inclined to the left, 10.5mm magnetic trocars were respectively placed at 2-3cm medial side of the right anterior axillary line, 8-10cm below the costal margin (point B); and 2-3cm below the costal margin of the left mid-clavicular line (point C); and were connected to the robotic arms No. 1 and 2. Besides, a 10mm trocar were placed at point D (lateral inferior of the line connecting point A and C) as the auxiliary channel. The surgeon held the neck of the gallbladder or Hartmann's Pouch with bipolar forceps, and pulled the neck to the right upper to open the serosal layer of the cystic duct. The cystic duct and the cystic artery were then separated by blunt dissection so as to distinguish the common bile duct, hepatic common bile duct, and cystic duct. Clamp and cut off the cystic duct near the gallbladder's neck with a Hemo-lock clamp. The cystic artery was found medial posterior side of the cystic duct. Clamp and cut off the cystic artery with Hemo-lock clamp. Pull the gallbladder's neck upward and remove the gallbladder by anterograde resection with an ultrasonic knife. The assistant assisted in dragging the gallbladder and the liver bed to keep a certain tension. The intact gallbladder was put into the specimen bag and removed. Bleeding and bile leakage was carefully checked, and the gallbladder bed was coagulated. The operating instruments were withdrawn from the patient's abdominal cavity after checking the instruments and the gauze. The pneumoperitoneum was exsufflated and the incisions were closed.
During the operation, the assembly time, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, operation success rate, and the adjacent organ and vascular injury caused by the failure of the tested system were recorded. Pain score was analyzed 24±2 hours after the surgery. The vital signs (temperature, pulse, respiration, blood pressure) were measured on the 3rd day postoperatively. Meanwhile, the routine blood test (red blood cells, white blood cells and neutrophils, platelet, hemoglobin), liver and renal function (ALT, AST, TP, ALB, GLU, TBIL, BUN, and CREA), the electrolyte (K, Na, Cl, Ca), blood sugar, and color ultrasound of liver, gallbladder, pancreas and spleen were checked. Operating surgeons filled in the satisfaction questionnaire postoperatively. Furthermore, the patients' postoperative condition changes, postoperative medication, the first postoperative anal exhaust, postoperative complications, and resident time were also recorded. All the patients were followed up by telephone at 30±5 days postoperatively to evaluate the incidncee of adverse events.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- random controlled trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| the Micro Hand S robot group | Experimental | Other: robot-assisted cholecystectomy41 patients were randomly allocated in the Micro Hand S robot group and cholecystectomy was performed using the Micro Hand S robot. |
| the da Vinci robot group | Other | Other: robot-assisted cholecystectomy41 patients were randomly allocated in the da Vinci robot group and cholecystectomy was performed using the da Vinci robot. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- from 18 to 65 years old;
- patients with acute or chronic cholecystitis, gallstone, gallbladder polyp and other benign gallbladder diseases;
- BMI was 18-30 kg/m2;
- the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was I, II, or III.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- women in pregnancy or lactation;
- A history of epilepsy or mental illness;
- Previous relevant operation history;
- Patients with a severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III-IV and pulmonary insufficiency who cannot tolerate the operation;
- Liver cirrhosis, kidney failure and other severe liver and kidney dysfunction (ALT and AST exceeded 3 times of the upper limit of normal value, Cr exceeded 1.5 times of the upper limit of normal value).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| robot-assisted cholecystectomycholecystectomy was performed for patients using the Chinese Micro Hand S surgical robot. | Other | the Micro Hand S robot group |
| robot-assisted cholecystectomycholecystectomy was performed for patients using the da Vinci surgical robot. | Other | the da Vinci robot group |
Primary outcome
Success rate of the surgery
Time frame: after the study is completed, up to 14 months
the proportion of patients with successful operation in all participating patients in the experimental or control group
5 secondary outcomes
assembly time
Time frame: after the robot is assembled, all data will be collected within 14 months
operation time
Time frame: after the procedure is completed, all data will be collected within 14 months
blood loss
Time frame: after the procedure is completed, all data will be collected within 14 months
Time to first flatus
Time frame: after the intestinal function revival of the patients, all data will be collected within 14 months
The hospital stay
Time frame: from the admission to the discharge, all data will be collected within 14 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Mar 2021.
- Background: PubMed 28846328Asad U, Wang CF, Jones MW. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. 2025 Jul 2. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448145/
- Background: PubMed 27123543Abdel Raheem A, Troya IS, Kim DK, Kim SH, Won PD, Joon PS, Hyun GS, Rha KH. Robot-assisted Fallopian tube transection and anastomosis using the new REVO-I robotic surgical system: feasibility in a chronic porcine model. BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):604-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13517. Epub 2016 May 26.
- Background: PubMed 27604366Alli VV, Yang J, Xu J, Bates AT, Pryor AD, Talamini MA, Telem DA. Nineteen-year trends in incidence and indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the NY State experience. Surg Endosc. 2017 Apr;31(4):1651-1658. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5154-9. Epub 2016 Sep 7.
- Background: PubMed 18520226Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien PA. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg. 2008 Jun;247(6):987-93. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318172501f.
- Background: PubMed 19911275Csikesz NG, Singla A, Murphy MM, Tseng JF, Shah SA. Surgeon volume metrics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci. 2010 Aug;55(8):2398-405. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-1035-6. Epub 2009 Nov 13.
- Background: PubMed 25840895Fanfani F, Monterossi G, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, Gueli Alletti S, Costantini B, Gallotta V, Selvaggi L, Restaino S, Scambia G. The new robotic TELELAP ALF-X in gynecological surgery: single-center experience. Surg Endosc. 2016 Jan;30(1):215-21. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4187-9. Epub 2015 Apr 4.
- Background: PubMed 16479111Heemskerk J, van Dam R, van Gemert WG, Beets GL, Greve JW, Jacobs MJ, Bouvy ND. First results after introduction of the four-armed da Vinci Surgical System in fully robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Surg. 2005;22(6):426-31. doi: 10.1159/000091445. Epub 2006 Feb 10.
- Background: PubMed 28011011Huang Y, Chua TC, Maddern GJ, Samra JS. Robotic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis. Surgery. 2017 Mar;161(3):628-636. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.061. Epub 2016 Dec 20.
- Background: PubMed 32865308Li J, Zhu S, Juan J, Yi B. Preliminary exploration of robotic complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer with the domestically produced Chinese minimally invasive Micro Hand S surgical robot system. Int J Med Robot. 2020 Dec;16(6):1-8. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2148. Epub 2020 Sep 11.
- Background: PubMed 31482355Luo D, Liu Y, Zhu H, Li X, Gao W, Li X, Zhu S, Yu X. The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2020 Aug;34(8):3368-3374. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07107-z. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
- Background: PubMed 30264180Melling N, Barr J, Schmitz R, Polonski A, Miro J, Ghadban T, Wodack K, Izbicki J, Zani S, Perez D. Robotic cholecystectomy: first experience with the new Senhance robotic system. J Robot Surg. 2019 Jun;13(3):495-500. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0877-3. Epub 2018 Sep 27.
- Background: PubMed 30251144Morelli L, Di Franco G, Lorenzoni V, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Furbetta N, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Caprili G, Mosca F, Turchetti G, Cuschieri A. Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience. Surg Endosc. 2019 Jun;33(6):1858-1869. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6465-9. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Case record form of the patients will be shared within six months after the trial complete
Related trials for Cholecystitis; Gallstone
Recruiting
Ultrasound-Guided Rectus Sheath Block Versus Local Infiltration
Cholelithiases, Cholecystitis
Recruiting
STALL vs Sole Local Wound Infiltration in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Cholelithiasis, Cholecystitis
Not yet recruiting
Supraglottic Oxygenation Via Oral Transtracheal Catheter for Reducing the Incidence of Hypoxemia During ERCP Under Sedation
Choledocholithiasis With Cholecystitis With Obstruction, Obstructive Jaundice
RecruitingObservational study
Influence of Gut Microbiome in Gallstone Disease
Gall Stone, Gall Stones, Common Bile Duct
Recruiting
Comparison of Gallbladder Extraction Via Subxiphoid vs Infraumbilical Port in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Cholelithiasis (Without Cholecystitis), Cholecystitis, Acute
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Weidong Guo, MD study chair
The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Early Phase 1 study testing robot-assisted cholecystectomy in people with Cholecystitis; Gallstone, run by The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Mar 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Early Phase 1 (sometimes called Phase 0) studies give a very small amount of a treatment to a few people, mainly to see how the body handles it.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Success rate of the surgery (time frame: after the study is completed, up to 14 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04803487, which also lists 20 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Mar 2021.