Literature DB >> 24619331

A comparison of NOTES transvaginal and laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures based upon task analysis.

Arun Nemani1, Ganesh Sankaranarayanan, Jaisa S Olasky, Souheil Adra, Kurt E Roberts, Lucian Panait, Steven D Schwaitzberg, Daniel B Jones, Suvranu De.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A virtual reality-based simulator for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures may be used for training and discovery of new tools and procedures. Our previous study (Sankaranarayanan et al. in Surg Endosc 27:1607-1616, 2013) shows that developing such a simulator for the transvaginal cholecystectomy procedure using a rigid endoscope will have the most impact on the field. However, prior to developing such a simulator, a thorough task analysis is necessary to determine the most important phases, tasks, and subtasks of this procedure.
METHODS: 19 rigid endoscope transvaginal hybrid NOTES cholecystectomy procedures and 11 traditional laparoscopic procedures have been recorded and de-identified prior to analysis. Hierarchical task analysis was conducted for the rigid endoscope transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomy. A time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of the transvaginal NOTES and laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures. Finally, a comparison of electrosurgery-based errors was performed by two independent qualified personnel.
RESULTS: The most time-consuming tasks for both laparoscopic and NOTES cholecystectomy are removing areolar and connective tissue surrounding the gallbladder, exposing Calot's triangle, and dissecting the gallbladder off the liver bed with electrosurgery. There is a positive correlation of performance time between the removal of areolar and connective tissue and electrosurgery dissection tasks in NOTES (r = 0.415) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (r = 0.684) with p < 0.10. During the electrosurgery task, the NOTES procedures had fewer errors related to lack of progress in gallbladder removal. Contrarily, laparoscopic procedures had fewer errors due to the instrument being out of the camera view.
CONCLUSION: A thorough task analysis and video-based quantification of NOTES cholecystectomy has identified the most time-consuming tasks. A comparison of the surgical errors during electrosurgery gallbladder dissection establishes that the NOTES procedure, while still new, is not inferior to the established laparoscopic procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24619331      PMCID: PMC4077992          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3495-9

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


  31 in total

1.  Hierarchical decomposition of laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  C G Cao; C L MacKenzie; J A Ibbotson; L J Turner; N P Blair; A G Nagy
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  1999

2.  Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study.

Authors:  Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Correlating motor performance with surgical error in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  H Hwang; J Lim; C Kinnaird; A G Nagy; O N M Panton; A J Hodgson; K A Qayumi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-26       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible?

Authors:  S V Kantsevoy; B Hu; S B Jagannath; C A Vaughn; D M Beitler; S S C Chung; P B Cotton; C J Gostout; R H Hawes; P J Pasricha; C A Magee; L J Pipitone; M A Talamini; A N Kalloo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-21       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Self-appraisal hierarchical task analysis of laparoscopic surgery performed by expert surgeons.

Authors:  S K Sarker; R Hutchinson; A Chang; C Vincent; A W Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-30       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  ASGE/SAGES Working Group on Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery. October 2005.

Authors:  D Rattner; A Kalloo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery.

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

8.  "Triangle of safety": anatomic considerations in transvaginal natural orifice surgery.

Authors:  Kurt Roberts; Daniel Solomon; Robert Bell; Andrew Duffy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-05-04       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Objective evaluation of a laparoscopic surgical skill program for residents and senior surgeons.

Authors:  J C Rosser; L E Rosser; R S Savalgi
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1998-06

10.  Laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy: hospitalization, sick leave, analgesia and trauma responses.

Authors:  U Berggren; T Gordh; D Grama; U Haglund; J Rastad; D Arvidsson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  4 in total

1.  Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): emerging trends and specifications for a virtual simulator.

Authors:  Steven D Schwaitzberg; Denis Dorozhkin; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Kai Matthes; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparison of acute phase protein and hemodynamic variables in dogs undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic vs. open pneumonectomy.

Authors:  Hai-Feng Liu; Qing-Ming Ren; Zhi-Bo Wang; Xin Li; Sheng Jiang; Jian-Tao Zhang; Hong-Bin Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  Face and content validation of a Virtual Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery Trainer (VTEST™).

Authors:  Denis Dorozhkin; Arun Nemani; Kurt Roberts; Woojin Ahn; Tansel Halic; Saurabh Dargar; Jinling Wang; Caroline G L Cao; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Suvranu De
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  EUS-guided gallbladder drainage: Current status and future prospects.

Authors:  Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.628

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.