Monica Jain1, Brian T Fry2, Luke W Hess3, Jennifer T Anger1, Bruce L Gewertz1, Ken Catchpole4. 1. Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Eberly College of Science, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: catchpol@musc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery offers advantages over conventional operative approaches but may also be associated with higher costs and additional risks. Analyzing surgical flow disruptions (FDs), defined as "deviations from the natural progression of an operation," can help target training techniques and identify opportunities for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two robotic surgery operations were observed over a 6-wk period at one 900-bed surgical center. FDs were recorded in detail and classified into one of 11 different categories. Procedure type, robot model, and resident involvement were also recorded. Linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the effects of these parameters on FDs and operative duration. RESULTS: Twenty-one prostatectomies, eight sacrocolpopexies, and three nephrectomies were observed. The mean number of FDs was 48.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.6-54.8 FDs), and mean operative duration was 163 min (95% CI 148-179 min). Each FD added 2.4 min (P = 0.025) to a case's total operative duration. The number and rate of FDs were significantly affected by resident involvement (P = 0.008 and P = 0.006, respectively). Resident cases demonstrated mostly training, equipment, and robot switch FDs, whereas nonresident cases demonstrated mostly equipment, instrument changes, and external factor FDs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the FDs encountered in resident training are more frequent, they may not significantly increase operative duration. Other FDs, such as equipment or external factors, may be more impactful. Limiting these specific FDs should be the focus of performance improvement efforts.
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery offers advantages over conventional operative approaches but may also be associated with higher costs and additional risks. Analyzing surgical flow disruptions (FDs), defined as "deviations from the natural progression of an operation," can help target training techniques and identify opportunities for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two robotic surgery operations were observed over a 6-wk period at one 900-bed surgical center. FDs were recorded in detail and classified into one of 11 different categories. Procedure type, robot model, and resident involvement were also recorded. Linear regression analyses were used to evaluate the effects of these parameters on FDs and operative duration. RESULTS: Twenty-one prostatectomies, eight sacrocolpopexies, and three nephrectomies were observed. The mean number of FDs was 48.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.6-54.8 FDs), and mean operative duration was 163 min (95% CI 148-179 min). Each FD added 2.4 min (P = 0.025) to a case's total operative duration. The number and rate of FDs were significantly affected by resident involvement (P = 0.008 and P = 0.006, respectively). Resident cases demonstrated mostly training, equipment, and robot switch FDs, whereas nonresident cases demonstrated mostly equipment, instrument changes, and external factor FDs. CONCLUSIONS: Although the FDs encountered in resident training are more frequent, they may not significantly increase operative duration. Other FDs, such as equipment or external factors, may be more impactful. Limiting these specific FDs should be the focus of performance improvement efforts.
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Anthony E B Giddings; Michael Wilkinson; Guy Hirst; Trevor Dale; Marc R de Leval Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Daniel Shouhed; Renaldo Blocker; Alex Gangi; Eric Ley; Jennifer Blaha; Daniel Margulies; Douglas A Wiegmann; Ben Starnes; Cathy Karl; Richard Karl; Bruce L Gewertz; Ken R Catchpole Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jenna C Allers; Ahmed A Hussein; Nabeeha Ahmad; Lora Cavuoto; Joseph F Wing; Robin M Hayes; Nobuyuki Hinata; Ann M Bisantz; Khurshid A Guru Journal: Urology Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Alexandra Gangi; Renaldo C Blocker; Eric J Ley; Jennifer Blaha; Bruce L Gewertz; Douglas A Wiegmann Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Colby Perkins; Catherine Bresee; M Jonathon Solnik; Benjamin Sherman; John Fritch; Bruno Gross; Samantha Jagannathan; Niv Hakami-Majd; Raymund Avenido; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Lauren Morgan; Eleanor Robertson; Mohammed Hadi; Ken Catchpole; Sharon Pickering; Steve New; Gary Collins; Peter McCulloch Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Elyse Hallett; Sam Curtis; Tannaz Mirchi; Colby P Souders; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Ann Bisantz; M Susan Hallbeck; Matthias Weigl; Rebecca Randell; Merrick Kossack; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Rohan C Vijayan; Runze Han; Pengwei Wu; Niral M Sheth; Michael D Ketcha; Prasad Vagdargi; Sebastian Vogt; Gerhard Kleinszig; Greg M Osgood; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Ali Uneri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-06-09