BACKGROUND: Disruptions to surgical workflow have been correlated with an increase in surgical errors and suboptimal outcomes in patient safety measures. Yet, our ability to quantify such threats to patient safety remains inadequate. Data are needed to gauge how the laparoscopic operating room work environment, where the visual and motor axes are no longer aligned, contributes to such disruptions. We used time motion analysis techniques to measure surgeon attention during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in order to characterize disruptive events imposed by the work environment of the OR. In this investigation we identify attention disruptions as they occur in terms of the operating surgeon's gaze. We then quantify such disruptions and also seek to establish what occasioned them. METHODS: Ten laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures were recorded with both intra- and extracorporeal cameras. The views were synchronized to produce a video that was subsequently analyzed by a single independent observer. Each time the surgeon's gaze was diverted from the operation's video display, the event was recorded via time-stamp. The reason for looking away (e.g., instrument exchange), when discernable, was also recorded and categorized. Disruptions were then reviewed and analyzed by an interdisciplinary team of surgeons and human factors experts. RESULTS: Gaze disruptions were classified into one of four causal categories: instrument exchange, extracorporeal work, equipment troubleshooting, and communication. On average, 40 breaks occurred in operating surgeon attention per 15 min of operating time. The most frequent reasons for these disruptions involved instrument exchange (38%) and downward gaze for extracorporeal work (28%). CONCLUSIONS: This study of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performance reveals a high gaze disruption rate in the current operating room work environment. Improvements aimed at reducing such disruptions-and thus potentially surgical error-should center on better instrument design and realigning the axis between surgeon's eye and visual display.
BACKGROUND: Disruptions to surgical workflow have been correlated with an increase in surgical errors and suboptimal outcomes in patient safety measures. Yet, our ability to quantify such threats to patient safety remains inadequate. Data are needed to gauge how the laparoscopic operating room work environment, where the visual and motor axes are no longer aligned, contributes to such disruptions. We used time motion analysis techniques to measure surgeon attention during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in order to characterize disruptive events imposed by the work environment of the OR. In this investigation we identify attention disruptions as they occur in terms of the operating surgeon's gaze. We then quantify such disruptions and also seek to establish what occasioned them. METHODS: Ten laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures were recorded with both intra- and extracorporeal cameras. The views were synchronized to produce a video that was subsequently analyzed by a single independent observer. Each time the surgeon's gaze was diverted from the operation's video display, the event was recorded via time-stamp. The reason for looking away (e.g., instrument exchange), when discernable, was also recorded and categorized. Disruptions were then reviewed and analyzed by an interdisciplinary team of surgeons and human factors experts. RESULTS: Gaze disruptions were classified into one of four causal categories: instrument exchange, extracorporeal work, equipment troubleshooting, and communication. On average, 40 breaks occurred in operating surgeon attention per 15 min of operating time. The most frequent reasons for these disruptions involved instrument exchange (38%) and downward gaze for extracorporeal work (28%). CONCLUSIONS: This study of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performance reveals a high gaze disruption rate in the current operating room work environment. Improvements aimed at reducing such disruptions-and thus potentially surgical error-should center on better instrument design and realigning the axis between surgeon's eye and visual display.
Authors: Caprice K Christian; Michael L Gustafson; Emilie M Roth; Thomas B Sheridan; Tejal K Gandhi; Kathleen Dwyer; Michael J Zinner; Meghan M Dierks Journal: Surgery Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Douglas A Wiegmann; Andrew W ElBardissi; Joseph A Dearani; Richard C Daly; Thoralf M Sundt Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Marco von Strauss Und Torney; Salome Dell-Kuster; Henry Hoffmann; Urs von Holzen; Daniel Oertli; Rachel Rosenthal Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Samuel J Vine; John S McGrath; Elizabeth Bright; Thomas Dutton; James Clark; Mark R Wilson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nathalia Velasquez; Omar H Ahmed; Philippe Lavigne; Ezequiel Goldschmidt; Paul A Gardner; Carl H Snyderman; Eric W Wang Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2020-09-10
Authors: Mark R Wilson; Samuel J Vine; Elizabeth Bright; Rich S W Masters; David Defriend; John S McGrath Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Davey Kreeft; Ewout Aart Arkenbout; Paulus Wilhelmus Johannes Henselmans; Wouter R van Furth; Paul Breedveld Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: John M Uecker; Farshid Alembeigi; Christopher R Idelson; Austin Fagerberg; Naser Ahmad; Alexander Cohen; Mitchell Gilkey Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584