Literature DB >> 19536599

Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload.

Dimitrios Stefanidis1, Fikre Wang, James R Korndorffer, J Bruce Dunne, Daniel J Scott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intracorporeal suturing is one of the most difficult laparoscopic tasks. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of robotic assistance on novice suturing performance, safety, and workload in the operating room.
METHODS: Medical students (n = 34), without prior laparoscopic suturing experience, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board-approved, randomized protocol. After viewing an instructional video, subjects were tested in intracorporeal suturing on two identical, live, porcine Nissen fundoplication models; they placed three gastro-gastric sutures using conventional laparoscopic instruments in one model and using robotic assistance (da Vinci) in the other, in random order. Each knot was objectively scored based on time, accuracy, and security. Injuries to surrounding structures were recorded. Workload was assessed using the validated National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) task load index (TLX) questionnaire, which measures the subjects' self-reported performance, effort, frustration, and mental, physical, and temporal demands of the task. Analysis was by paired t-test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: Compared with laparoscopy, robotic assistance enabled subjects to suture faster (595 +/- 22 s versus 459 +/- 137 s, respectively; p < 0.001), achieve higher overall scores (0 +/- 1 versus 95 +/- 128, respectively; p < 0.001), and commit fewer errors per knot (1.15 +/- 1.35 versus 0.05 +/- 0.26, respectively; p < 0.001). Subjects' overall score did not improve between the first and third attempt for laparoscopic suturing (0 +/- 0 versus 0 +/- 0; p = NS) but improved significantly for robotic suturing (49 +/- 100 versus 141 +/- 152; p < 0.001). Moreover, subjects indicated on the NASA-TLX scale that the task was more difficult to perform with laparoscopic instruments compared with robotic assistance (99 +/- 15 versus 57 +/- 23; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard laparoscopy, robotic assistance significantly improved intracorporeal suturing performance and safety of novices in the operating room while decreasing their workload. Moreover, the robot significantly shortened the learning curve of this difficult task. Further study is needed to assess the value of robotic assistance for experienced surgeons, and validated robotic training curricula need to be developed.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19536599     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0578-0

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


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery.

Authors:  K Moorthy; Y Munz; A Dosis; J Hernandez; S Martin; F Bello; T Rockall; A Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Future trends in the design and application of surgical robots.

Authors:  Richard M Satava
Journal:  Semin Laparosc Surg       Date:  2004-06

4.  Robotic Laparoscopic Fundoplication.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; James R Korndorffer; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-02

5.  Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room.

Authors:  James R Korndorffer; J Bruce Dunne; Rafael Sierra; Dimitris Stefanidis; Cheri L Touchard; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 6.  Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Stefano Cavalleri; Giacomo Novara; Maurizio Aragona; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Robotic fundoplication: from theoretic advantages to real problems.

Authors:  Renato Costi; Jacques Himpens; Jean Bruyns; Guy Bernard Cadière
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications.

Authors:  Jacques Marescaux; Joel Leroy; Francesco Rubino; Michelle Smith; Michel Vix; Michele Simone; Didier Mutter
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Authors:  Catherine J Mohr; Geoffrey S Nadzam; Myriam J Curet
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2005-08

10.  Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills.

Authors:  Richard Sarle; Ashutosh Tewari; Alok Shrivastava; James Peabody; Mani Menon
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  52 in total

1.  Robot-assisted total gastrectomy is comparable with laparoscopically assisted total gastrectomy for early gastric cancer.

Authors:  Hong Man Yoon; Young-Woo Kim; Jun Ho Lee; Keun Won Ryu; Bang Wool Eom; Ji Yeon Park; Il Ju Choi; Chan Gyoo Kim; Jong Yeul Lee; Soo Jeong Cho; Ji Yoon Rho
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures.

Authors:  Gi Hong Choi; Sung Hoon Choi; Sung Hoon Kim; Ho Kyoung Hwang; Chang Moo Kang; Jin Sub Choi; Woo Jung Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-02-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  [Pyeloplasty - pro robotic-assisted].

Authors:  Z Akçetin; S Siemer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises.

Authors:  Genevieve Dulan; Robert V Rege; Deborah C Hogg; Kristine M Gilberg-Fisher; Nabeel A Arain; Seifu T Tesfay; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Geoffrey P Kohn; Patrick R Reardon; William S Richardson; Robert D Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries.

Authors:  Gyusung I Lee; Mija R Lee; Tameka Clanton; Tamera Clanton; Erica Sutton; Adrian E Park; Michael R Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a minimum of three years follow-up.

Authors:  Mark S Shimko; Eric C Umbreit; George K Chow; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-19

9.  Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices.

Authors:  Carlo C Passerotti; Felipe Franco; Julio C C Bissoli; Bruno Tiseo; Caio M Oliveira; Carlos A O Buchalla; Gustavo N C Inoue; Arzu Sencan; Aydin Sencan; Rogerio Ruscitto do Pardo; Hiep T Nguyen
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center.

Authors:  Alexander C Mertens; Rob C Tolboom; Hana Zavrtanik; Werner A Draaisma; Ivo A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.