Literature DB >> 17522931

A computerized analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic task performance.

Vimal K Narula1, William C Watson, S Scott Davis, Kristen Hinshaw, Bradley J Needleman, Dean J Mikami, Jeffrey W Hazey, John H Winston, P Muscarella, Mike Rubin, Vipul Patel, W Scott Melvin.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Robotic technology has been postulated to improve performance in advanced surgical skills. We utilized a novel computerized assessment system to objectively describe the technical enhancement in task performance comparing robotic and laparoscopic instrumentation. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Advanced laparoscopic surgeons (2-10 yrs experience) performed three unique task modules using laparoscopic and Telerobotic surgical instrumentation (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Performance was evaluated using a computerized assessment system (ProMIS, Dublin, Ireland) and results were recorded as time (s), path (mm) and precision. Each surgeon had an initial training session followed by two testing sessions for each module. A paired Student's t-test was used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: Ten surgeons completed the study. 8/10 surgeons had significant technical enhancement utilizing robotic technology.
CONCLUSIONS: The ProMIS computerized assessment system can be modified to objectively obtain task performance data with robotic instrumentation. All the tasks were performed faster and with more precision using the robotic technology than standard laparoscopy.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17522931     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9363-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  10 in total

1.  Efficiency of manual versus robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks.

Authors:  D Nio; W A Bemelman; K T Boer; M S Dunker; D J Gouma; T M Gulik
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Computer-enhanced vs. standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery.

Authors:  W Scott Melvin; Bradley J Needleman; Kevin R Krause; Carol Schneider; E Christopher Ellison
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 3.  The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery.

Authors:  Garth H Ballantyne
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 1.719

4.  Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems.

Authors:  G F Dakin; M Gagner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-02-17       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill.

Authors:  L Chang; R M Satava; C A Pellegrini; M N Sinanan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-09-10       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve?

Authors:  Paulos Yohannes; Paul Rotariu; Peter Pinto; Arthur D Smith; Benjamin R Lee
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Construct validation of the ProMIS simulator using a novel laparoscopic suturing task.

Authors:  K R Van Sickle; D A McClusky; A G Gallagher; C D Smith
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic skills enhancement.

Authors:  W S Melvin; J A Johnson; E C Ellison
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Anastomotic complications in minimally invasive coronary bypass grafting.

Authors:  S Pagni; N K Qaqish; D G Senior; P A Spence
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  J C Rosser; L E Rosser; R S Savalgi
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1997-02
  10 in total
  8 in total

1.  Learning curves in expert and non-expert laparoscopic surgeons for robotic suturing with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System.

Authors:  Yasuo Sumi; Parag W Dhumane; Koji Komeda; Bernard Dallemagne; Daisuke Kuroda; Jacques Marescaux
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-02-11

2.  Comparison of fatigue accumulated during and after prolonged robotic and laparoscopic surgical methods: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Manuel González-Sánchez; Ivan González-Poveda; Santiago Mera-Velasco; Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Surgeon activity in robotic versus abdominal gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Sarah A Collins; David M O'Sullivan; Paul K Tulikangas
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-10-20

4.  Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance.

Authors:  Patrick S McDonough; Timothy J Tausch; Andrew C Peterson; Timothy C Brand
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-02-27

5.  Are there advantages to robotic-assisted surgery over laparoscopy from the surgeon's perspective?

Authors:  Julie Ann Van Koughnett; Shiva Jayaraman; Roy Eagleson; Douglas Quan; Aimee van Wynsberghe; Christopher M Schlachta
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-06-03

6.  A direct comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair: patient-reported outcomes and cost analysis.

Authors:  N E Zayan; M P Meara; J S Schwartz; V K Narula
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis.

Authors:  Haiqi He; Qifei Wu; Zhe Wang; Yong Zhang; Nanzheng Chen; Junke Fu; Guangjian Zhang
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 1.637

Review 8.  What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery?

Authors:  Sanne M B I Botden; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-24       Impact factor: 4.584

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.