Literature DB >> 26530974

Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy.

Lee J Moore1, Mark R Wilson2, Elizabeth Waine3, Rich S W Masters4,5, John S McGrath3, Samuel J Vine6.   

Abstract

Technical surgical skills are said to be acquired quicker on a robotic rather than laparoscopic platform. However, research examining this proposition is scarce. Thus, this study aimed to compare the performance and learning curves of novices acquiring skills using a robotic or laparoscopic system, and to examine if any learning advantages were maintained over time and transferred to more difficult and stressful tasks. Forty novice participants were randomly assigned to either a robotic- or laparoscopic-trained group. Following one baseline trial on a ball pick-and-drop task, participants performed 50 learning trials. Participants then completed an immediate retention trial and a transfer trial on a two-instrument rope-threading task. One month later, participants performed a delayed retention trial and a stressful multi-tasking trial. The results revealed that the robotic-trained group completed the ball pick-and-drop task more quickly and accurately than the laparoscopic-trained group across baseline, immediate retention, and delayed retention trials. Furthermore, the robotic-trained group displayed a shorter learning curve for accuracy. The robotic-trained group also performed the more complex rope-threading and stressful multi-tasking transfer trials better. Finally, in the multi-tasking trial, the robotic-trained group made fewer tone counting errors. The results highlight the benefits of using robotic technology for the acquisition of technical surgical skills.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic surgery; Learning curves; Multi-tasking; Performance; Robotic surgery; Skill acquisition

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 26530974     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  21 in total

1.  Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills.

Authors:  C D Smith; T M Farrell; S S McNatt; R E Metreveli
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  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

3.  Cheating experience: Guiding novices to adopt the gaze strategies of experts expedites the learning of technical laparoscopic skills.

Authors:  Samuel J Vine; Rich S W Masters; John S McGrath; Elizabeth Bright; Mark R Wilson
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Initial laparoscopic basic skills training shortens the learning curve of laparoscopic suturing and is cost-effective.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; James R Korndorffer; Sarah Markley; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices.

Authors:  Venita Chandra; Deepika Nehra; Richard Parent; Russell Woo; Rosette Reyes; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Sanjeev Dutta
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 6.  The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Sonal Arora; Nick Sevdalis; Debra Nestel; Maria Woloshynowych; Ara Darzi; Roger Kneebone
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  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

8.  Learning curves in expert and non-expert laparoscopic surgeons for robotic suturing with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System.

Authors:  Yasuo Sumi; Parag W Dhumane; Koji Komeda; Bernard Dallemagne; Daisuke Kuroda; Jacques Marescaux
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-02-11

9.  Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency.

Authors:  K Narazaki; D Oleynikov; N Stergiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 3.453

Review 10.  Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes.

Authors:  D A G Reyes; B Tang; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 3.453

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Frontiers in robot-assisted retroperitoneal oncological surgery.

Authors:  Wesley W Ludwig; Michael A Gorin; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Current status of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer.

Authors:  Masato Kanzaki
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population: a review of technique, outcomes, complications, and special considerations in infants.

Authors:  William R Boysen; Mohan S Gundeti
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 1.827

Review 4.  Robotic Primary RPLND for Stage I Testicular Cancer: a Review of Indications and Outcomes.

Authors:  Heather J Chalfin; Wesley Ludwig; Phillip M Pierorazio; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Management of Adult UPJ Obstruction.

Authors:  Marshall C Strother; Phillip Mucksavage
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair.

Authors:  I Belyansky; H Reza Zahiri; Z Sanford; A S Weltz; A Park
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Camille L Stewart; Philip H G Ituarte; Kurt A Melstrom; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Yanghee Woo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Resection for Lung Cancer: Early Results of a New Robotic Program.

Authors:  Benedetto Mungo; Craig M Hooker; Janelle S Y Ho; Stephen C Yang; Richard J Battafarano; Malcolm V Brock; Daniela Molena
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 1.878

9.  Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Authors:  Rana M Higgins; Matthew J Frelich; Matthew E Bosler; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Primary robotic RLPND for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: a two-center analysis of intermediate oncologic and safety outcomes.

Authors:  Nicholas R Rocco; Sean P Stroup; Haidar M Abdul-Muhsin; Michael T Marshall; Michael G Santomauro; Matthew S Christman; James O L'Esperance; Erik P Castle
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.