BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, minimally invasive surgery has undergone continuous development due to the demand for scarless results, with laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery constituting one of today's most favored alternatives. In this study, we aim to assess the relative technical difficulty and performance benefits of dynamic articulating and pre-bent instruments, either combined with conventional laparoscopic tools or not, during the completion of two basic tasks hands-on simulator. METHODS: A total of 20 surgeons were included and performed two basic simulator tasks-coordination and cutting-carried out using four different combinations of LESS-designed and straight conventional laparoscopy instruments. Assessment took place before and after the completion of a 14-week training program. Performance data were objectively analyzed over video recordings with an adapted global rating scale (a-GRS) for performance evaluation, combined with a registry of total trial completion time. RESULTS: In the coordination task, the worst performance scores (p < 0.001) and longest completion times (p < 0.001 on first assessment and p < 0.01 on last assessment) were obtained with the two dynamic articulating tip instruments. On the cut trials, no significant differences between the different setups were found in a-GRS scores. The two dynamic articulating tip instruments also constituted the most time-demanding setup on both assessment trials (p < 0.05). The use of two dynamic articulating tip instruments showed significant improvement with training in all measured parameters except for performance in the cut task, in which the increase in a-GRS score was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the least adequate instrument set for initiation in LESS surgery is the one that combines two dynamic articulating tip instruments, as this has consistently obtained the worst results in all trials. Further data on more complex tasks and on a complete learning and skills-acquisition program must be obtained to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, minimally invasive surgery has undergone continuous development due to the demand for scarless results, with laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery constituting one of today's most favored alternatives. In this study, we aim to assess the relative technical difficulty and performance benefits of dynamic articulating and pre-bent instruments, either combined with conventional laparoscopic tools or not, during the completion of two basic tasks hands-on simulator. METHODS: A total of 20 surgeons were included and performed two basic simulator tasks-coordination and cutting-carried out using four different combinations of LESS-designed and straight conventional laparoscopy instruments. Assessment took place before and after the completion of a 14-week training program. Performance data were objectively analyzed over video recordings with an adapted global rating scale (a-GRS) for performance evaluation, combined with a registry of total trial completion time. RESULTS: In the coordination task, the worst performance scores (p < 0.001) and longest completion times (p < 0.001 on first assessment and p < 0.01 on last assessment) were obtained with the two dynamic articulating tip instruments. On the cut trials, no significant differences between the different setups were found in a-GRS scores. The two dynamic articulating tip instruments also constituted the most time-demanding setup on both assessment trials (p < 0.05). The use of two dynamic articulating tip instruments showed significant improvement with training in all measured parameters except for performance in the cut task, in which the increase in a-GRS score was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the least adequate instrument set for initiation in LESS surgery is the one that combines two dynamic articulating tip instruments, as this has consistently obtained the worst results in all trials. Further data on more complex tasks and on a complete learning and skills-acquisition program must be obtained to confirm these findings.
Authors: Melina C Vassiliou; Liane S Feldman; Christopher G Andrew; Simon Bergman; Karen Leffondré; Donna Stanbridge; Gerald M Fried Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Arnold P Advincula; Monish Aron; Jeffrey Caddedu; David Canes; Paul G Curcillo; Mihir M Desai; John C Evanko; Tomasso Falcone; Victor Fazio; Matthew Gettman; Andrew A Gumbs; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk; Fernando Kim; Stephanie A King; Jeffrey Ponsky; Feza Remzi; Homero Rivas; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sharona Ross; Philip Schauer; Rene Sotelo; Jose Speranza; John Sweeney; Julio Teixeira Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Arkadiusz Miernik; Martin Schoenthaler; Kerstin Lilienthal; Alexander Frankenschmidt; Wojciech Konrad Karcz; Simon Kuesters Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Arsalla Islam; Antonio O Castellvi; Seifu T Tesfay; Alejandro D Castellvi; Andrew S Wright; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Philip G Chen; Daniel R Chang; Erik K Weitzel; Jennifer Peel; Rakesh K Chandra; K Christopher McMains Journal: Allergy Rhinol (Providence) Date: 2016-01-01
Authors: Salvador Morales-Conde; Andrea Peeters; Yannick M Meyer; Stavros A Antoniou; Isaías Alarcón Del Agua; Alberto Arezzo; Simone Arolfo; Amir Ben Yehuda; Luigi Boni; Elisa Cassinotti; Giovanni Dapri; Tao Yang; Sofie Fransen; Antonello Forgione; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Michele Mazzola; Marco Migliore; Christof Mittermair; Doris Mittermair; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Carlos Moreno-Sanz; Andrea Morlacchi; Eran Nizri; Myrthe Nuijts; Jonas Raakow; Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Juan A Sánchez-Margallo; Amir Szold; Helmut Weiss; Michael Weiss; Ricardo Zorron; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584