Robotic arm assisting in colorectal surgery.

Robotic vs. Human Assistance in Colorectal Surgery: Which is More Effective?

Reese Marlowe in Health & Wellness November 2025 • 4 min read.

"A new study investigates whether robotic scope holders like Soloassist® can improve laparoscopic colorectal resections compared to traditional human assistance."

Laparoscopic surgery has transformed colorectal procedures, offering minimally invasive approaches that benefit patients worldwide. As techniques evolve, two major trends are emerging: single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) to reduce scarring, and the integration of mechanical supporting equipment like robot-assisted surgery. These advancements aim to enhance precision, reduce surgeon fatigue, and improve patient outcomes.

Among the innovations in surgical technology, robotic scope holders have garnered attention. The Soloassist® system, a joystick-guided endoscope remote control, allows surgeons to control the field of view, potentially offering greater control and stability during procedures. This system, in particular, has been applied in all laparoscopic surgeries including emergency operations.

A recent study has evaluated the efficacy of the Soloassist® system in laparoscopic colorectal resections, comparing it to traditional human scope assistance. The study aimed to determine if Soloassist® can reduce operative time, blood loss, and other key surgical metrics, ultimately assessing its value as a robot-assisted surgical instrument.

Soloassist® vs. Human Assistance: Key Findings

Robotic arm assisting in colorectal surgery.

The study, which involved 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, compared 130 cases with human assistance (HA group) to 143 cases using Soloassist® (SA group). Researchers analyzed operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons. Statistical methods, including logistic regression, were used to balance potential biases between the groups.

The results revealed several key differences between the two approaches:

Reduced Surgeon Involvement: The Soloassist® group required fewer participating surgeons (2.5 vs. 3.3 in the human assistance group, p<0.01).
Operative Time: While the Soloassist® group showed a trend toward shorter operative times, the difference was not statistically significant (268.5 min vs. 287.0 min in the human assistance group, p=0.07). However, significant difference was demonstrated only in right-side colectomy (p=0.01).
Lymph Node Dissection: The total number of dissected lymph nodes was higher in the SA group (HA group: 18.6 vs. SA group: 21.0, p=0.02).
No Significant Differences: Setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay were similar between the two groups. Importantly, there were no system-specific adverse events associated with Soloassist®.

After propensity score matching, which further balanced the groups, the study continued to show shorter operation time in right-side colectomy with Soloassist. The number of participating surgeons was significantly lower (p<0.01), and the tendency to shorten the operation time in the SA group remained, but no statistically significant difference was observed (p=0.07). There was no significant difference in other perioperative outcomes.

The Future of Surgical Assistance: Efficiency and Innovation

The study suggests that Soloassist® offers a safe and feasible alternative to human scope assistance in laparoscopic colorectal resection. By potentially reducing the number of surgeons required and maintaining comparable surgical outcomes, Soloassist® provides possibilities for saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity.

One of the distinct advantages of the Soloassist® system lies in its intuitive design and ease of use. The joystick control allows surgeons to manipulate the laparoscope with dexterity, while the slim design of the robotic arm minimizes interference with surgical instruments. The system's compatibility with existing operating room setups further enhances its practicality.

While the present study offers valuable insights, future research should focus on prospective, randomized trials comparing Soloassist® to both human assistance and full-robotic surgery. Further investigation into long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness will help determine the optimal role of robotic scope holders in modern surgical practice.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1007/s00464-018-6506-4, Alternate LINK

Title: Comparative Effectiveness Of Human Scope Assistant Versus Robotic Scope Holder In Laparoscopic Resection For Colorectal Cancer

Subject: Surgery

Journal: Surgical Endoscopy

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Authors: Yasushi Ohmura, Hiromitsu Suzuki, Kazutoshi Kotani, Atsushi Teramoto

Published: 2018-10-17

Related Articles

Everything You Need To Know

1

What is the Soloassist® system and how is it used in surgery?

The Soloassist® system is a robotic scope holder used in laparoscopic surgery. It's designed to provide surgeons with greater control and stability by allowing them to remotely manipulate the endoscope's field of view via a joystick. This system aims to enhance precision during procedures, reduce surgeon fatigue, and potentially improve patient outcomes by optimizing the surgical view.

2

What were the key findings when comparing surgeries using Soloassist® versus human assistance?

The study compared laparoscopic colorectal resections performed with human assistance to those using the Soloassist® system. Key findings include a reduction in the number of participating surgeons needed when using Soloassist®, a trend toward shorter operative times (though not always statistically significant, except in right-side colectomy), and a higher number of lymph nodes dissected in the Soloassist® group. There were no significant differences in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. Importantly, no system-specific adverse events were associated with Soloassist®.

3

Does the Soloassist® system really reduce the amount of time it takes to perform a colectomy?

While the study indicates a trend toward shorter operative times with the Soloassist® system, the difference wasn't always statistically significant across all cases. However, in right-side colectomy, Soloassist® did demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in operative time. This suggests that Soloassist® may offer efficiency benefits, especially in specific types of colorectal resections. The implication is that targeted application of Soloassist® could lead to more efficient use of surgical time.

4

Why did the Soloassist® group have a higher number of lymph nodes dissected?

The study revealed that the Soloassist® group had a higher number of lymph nodes dissected compared to the human assistance group. This could have significant implications for cancer staging and treatment planning, as more thorough lymph node dissection can improve the accuracy of staging and potentially enhance long-term outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Future studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of increased lymph node dissection when using Soloassist®.

5

Is Soloassist® a safe alternative to human assistance in laparoscopic colorectal resections?

Based on the study, the Soloassist® system appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to human scope assistance in laparoscopic colorectal resection. By reducing the number of surgeons required without compromising surgical outcomes, Soloassist® offers possibilities for more efficient use of human resources in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The absence of system-specific adverse events in the study further supports its safety profile. This suggests that Soloassist® could be integrated into surgical practice to optimize resource allocation and maintain patient safety.