Literature DB >> 14551655

From the operating room of the present to the operating room of the future. Human-factors lessons learned from the minimally invasive surgery revolution.

Anthony G Gallagher1, C Daniel Smith.   

Abstract

The minimally invasive surgical revolution has changed the way surgery is practiced. It has also helped surgical innovators to break the tethers that anchored the practice of surgery in an early 20th century operating room environment. To some in surgery, the Operating Room of the Future will be seen as a revolution but to others, an inevitable evolution of the changes ushered in by the adoption of minimally invasive surgery. Although minimally invasive surgery has conferred considerable advantages on the patient, it has imposed significant difficulties on the surgeon, which in turn, have impacted outcomes. These difficulties were primarily human factor in nature and were poorly understood by critical groups such as device manufacturers, surgeons, and surgery educators and trainers. This article details what these human factors were, how they related to the practice of minimally invasive surgery, and how they will impact on the practice of surgery in the Operating Room of the Future. Much of the technology for the Operating Room of the Future currently exists (eg, surgical robotics, virtual reality, and telemedicine). However, for it to function optimally it must be integrated in a fashion that takes on board the human factor strengths and limitations of the surgeon. These advanced technologies should then be harnessed to optimize surgical practice. In some cases, this will involve rethinking existing technologies (ie, three-dimensional camera systems), applying technologies that currently exist in a manner that is more systematic and better managed (ie, surgical robots and virtual reality), and a reconsideration of who should be applying these technologies for the practice of surgery in the 21st century. In all cases, there will be education and training implications for the practitioner. Lastly, there must be unequivocal demonstration that these changes bring about positive benefits for patients in terms of better outcomes and for surgeons in terms of ability and ease of doing their job. After the experiences of the last decade with minimally invasive surgery, the Operating Room of the Future should be seen as a well-grounded evolution, not a revolution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14551655     DOI: 10.1177/107155170301000306

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Laparosc Surg        ISSN: 1071-5517


  14 in total

1.  Coping with stress in surgery: the difficulty of measuring non-technical skills.

Authors:  E Boyle; A M Kennedy; E Doherty; D O'Keeffe; O Traynor
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Tissue consistency perception in laparoscopy to define the level of fidelity in virtual reality simulation.

Authors:  P Lamata; E J Gómez; F M Sánchez-Margallo; F Lamata; F del Pozo; J Usón
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  A laboratory study on anticipatory movement in laparoscopic surgery: a behavioral indicator for team collaboration.

Authors:  B Zheng; L L Swanström; C L MacKenzie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-12-16       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Technologies and solutions for data display in the operating room.

Authors:  Noemi Bitterman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  The delivery of general paediatric surgery in Ireland: a survey of higher surgical trainees.

Authors:  E Boyle; S R Walsh; P A Grace
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 1.568

6.  Baseline urologic surgical skills among medical students: Differentiating trainees.

Authors:  Vishaal Gupta; Andrea G Lantz; Tarek Alzharani; Kirsten Foell; Jason Y Lee
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Visual spatial ability for surgical trainees: implications for learning endoscopic, laparoscopic surgery and other image-guided procedures.

Authors:  Patrick Henn; Anthony G Gallagher; Emmeline Nugent; Neal E Seymour; Randy S Haluck; Hazem Hseino; Oscar Traynor; Paul C Neary
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Training or non-surgical factors-what determines a good surgical performance? A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Cornelia Lindlohr; R Lefering; S Saad; M M Heiss; C Pape-Köhler
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 3.445

9.  Risk-sensitive events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the influence of the integrated operating room and a preoperative checklist tool.

Authors:  Sonja N Buzink; Lotte van Lier; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-02-05       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Do basic psychomotor skills transfer between different image-based procedures?

Authors:  Sonja N Buzink; Richard H M Goossens; Erik J Schoon; Huib de Ridder; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.