Literature DB >> 21184110

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

Dimitrios Stefanidis1, William W Hope, Daniel J Scott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of robotic assistance for intracorporeal suturing is not well defined. We compared robotic suturing with laparoscopic suturing on the FLS model with a large cohort of surgeons.
METHODS: Attendees (n=117) at the SAGES 2006 Learning Center robotic station placed intracorporeal sutures on the FLS box-trainer model using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the da Vinci® robot. Participant performance was recorded using a validated objective scoring system, and a questionnaire regarding demographics, task workload, and suturing modality preference was completed. Construct validity for both tasks was assessed by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience. A validated questionnaire was used for workload measurement.
RESULTS: Of the participants, 84% had prior laparoscopic and 10% prior robotic suturing experience. Within the allotted time, 83% of participants completed the suturing task laparoscopically and 72% with the robot. Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulated tasks according to the participants' advanced laparoscopic experience, laparoscopic suturing experience, and self-reported laparoscopic suturing ability (p<0.001 for all) and according to prior robotic experience, robotic suturing experience, and self-reported robotic suturing ability (p<0.001 for all), respectively. While participants achieved higher suturing scores with standard laparoscopy compared with the robot (84±75 vs. 56±63, respectively; p<0.001), they found the laparoscopic task more physically demanding (NASA score 13±5 vs. 10±5, respectively; p<0.001) and favored the robot as their method of choice for intracorporeal suturing (62 vs. 38%, respectively; p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Construct validity was demonstrated for robotic suturing on the FLS model. Suturing scores were higher using standard laparoscopy likely as a result of the participants' greater experience with laparoscopic suturing versus robotic suturing. Robotic assistance decreases the physical demand of intracorporeal suturing compared with conventional laparoscopy and, in this study, was the preferred suturing method by most surgeons. Curricula for robotic suturing training need to be developed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21184110     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1512-1

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


  15 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.  Manual robot assisted endoscopic suturing: time-action analysis in an experimental model.

Authors:  J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders; B Pulles; F M Kappelhof; C van der Werken
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Robot-assisted abdominal surgery.

Authors:  C N Gutt; T Oniu; A Mehrabi; A Kashfi; P Schemmer; M W Büchler
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Robotic Laparoscopic Fundoplication.

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

6.  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

7.  Robotics and telesurgery--an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Rassweiler; K C Safi; S Subotic; D Teber; T Frede
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.442

8.  Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis.

Authors:  Slawomir J Marecik; Leela M Prasad; John J Park; Azam Jan; Vivek Chaudhry
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.565

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

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; Fikre Wang; James R Korndorffer; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 4.584

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

Authors:  Catherine J Mohr; Geoffrey S Nadzam; Myriam J Curet
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2005-08
View more
  21 in total

1.  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

2.  The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start.

Authors:  Blair A Wormer; Kristian T Dacey; Kristopher B Williams; Joel F Bradley; Amanda L Walters; Vedra A Augenstein; Dimitrios Stefanidis; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  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

Review 4.  Validity evidence for the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program as an assessment tool: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin Zendejas; Raaj K Ruparel; David A Cook
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Surgeons' display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Authors:  Lee J Moore; Mark R Wilson; John S McGrath; Elizabeth Waine; Rich S W Masters; Samuel J Vine
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Experience implication in subjective surgical ergonomics comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries.

Authors:  V Mendes; Franck Bruyere; Jean Michel Escoffre; Aurelien Binet; Hubert Lardy; Henri Marret; Frederic Marchal; Thomas Hebert
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-03-12

7.  Can a virtual reality surgical simulation training provide a self-driven and mentor-free skills learning? Investigation of the practical influence of the performance metrics from the virtual reality robotic surgery simulator on the skill learning and associated cognitive workloads.

Authors:  Gyusung I Lee; Mija R Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Learning tools and simulation in robotic surgery: state of the art.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Philippe Morel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Surgeons' physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study.

Authors:  G I Lee; M R Lee; I Green; M Allaf; M R Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Patients with ineffective esophageal motility benefit from laparoscopic antireflux surgery.

Authors:  Alex Addo; Philip George; H Reza Zahiri; Adrian Park
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.