Souzana Choussein1, Serene S Srouji1, Leslie V Farland2, Ashley Wietsma3, Stacey A Missmer4, Michael Hollis3, Richard N Yu3, Charles N Pozner5, Antonio R Gargiulo6. 1. Center for Infertility and Reproductive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Urology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Center for Infertility and Reproductive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Neil and Elise Wallace STRATUS Center for Medical Simulation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Center for Infertility and Reproductive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: agargiulo@partners.org.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a robotic surgical platform can complement the fine motor skills of the nondominant hand, compensating for the innate difference in dexterity between surgeon's hands, thereby conferring virtual ambidexterity. DESIGN: Crossover intervention study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). SETTING:Centers for medical simulation in 2 tertiary care hospitals of Harvard Medical School. PARTICIPANTS: Three groups of subjects were included: (1) surgical novices (medical graduates with no robotic/laparoscopic experience); (2) surgeons in training (postgraduate year3-4 residents and fellows with intermediate robotic and laparoscopic experience); and (3) advanced surgeons (attending surgeons with extensive robotic and laparoscopic experience). INTERVENTIONS: Each study group completed 3 dry laboratory exercises based on exercises included in the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) curriculum. Each exercise was completed 4 times: using the dominant and nondominant hands, on a standard laparoscopic FLS box trainer, and in a robotic dry laboratory setup. Participants were randomized to the handedness and setting order in which they tackled the tasks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Performance was primarily measured as time to completion, with adjustments based on errors. Means of performance for the dominant versus nondominant hand for each task were calculated and compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. A total of 36 subjects were enrolled (12 per group). In the laparoscopic setting, the mean overall time to completion of all 3 tasks with the dominant hand differed significantly from that with the nondominant hand (439.4 seconds vs 568.4 seconds; p = .0008). The between-hand performance difference was nullified with the robotic system (374.4 seconds vs 399.7 seconds; p = .48). The evaluation of performance for each individual task also revealed a statistically significant disparate performance between hands for all 3 tasks when the laparoscopic approach was used (p = .003, .02, and .01, respectively); however, no between-hand difference was observed when the tasks were performed robotically. On analysis across the 3 surgeon experience groups, the performance advantage of robotic technology remained significant for the surgical novice and intermediate-level experience groups. CONCLUSION:Robot-assisted laparoscopy may eliminate the operative handedness observed in conventional laparoscopy, allowing for virtual ambidexterity. This ergonomic advantage is particularly evident in surgical trainees. Virtual ambidexterity may represent an additional aspect of surgical robotics that facilitates mastery of minimally invasive skills.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a robotic surgical platform can complement the fine motor skills of the nondominant hand, compensating for the innate difference in dexterity between surgeon's hands, thereby conferring virtual ambidexterity. DESIGN: Crossover intervention study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). SETTING: Centers for medical simulation in 2 tertiary care hospitals of Harvard Medical School. PARTICIPANTS: Three groups of subjects were included: (1) surgical novices (medical graduates with no robotic/laparoscopic experience); (2) surgeons in training (postgraduate year 3-4 residents and fellows with intermediate robotic and laparoscopic experience); and (3) advanced surgeons (attending surgeons with extensive robotic and laparoscopic experience). INTERVENTIONS: Each study group completed 3 dry laboratory exercises based on exercises included in the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) curriculum. Each exercise was completed 4 times: using the dominant and nondominant hands, on a standard laparoscopic FLS box trainer, and in a robotic dry laboratory setup. Participants were randomized to the handedness and setting order in which they tackled the tasks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Performance was primarily measured as time to completion, with adjustments based on errors. Means of performance for the dominant versus nondominant hand for each task were calculated and compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. A total of 36 subjects were enrolled (12 per group). In the laparoscopic setting, the mean overall time to completion of all 3 tasks with the dominant hand differed significantly from that with the nondominant hand (439.4 seconds vs 568.4 seconds; p = .0008). The between-hand performance difference was nullified with the robotic system (374.4 seconds vs 399.7 seconds; p = .48). The evaluation of performance for each individual task also revealed a statistically significant disparate performance between hands for all 3 tasks when the laparoscopic approach was used (p = .003, .02, and .01, respectively); however, no between-hand difference was observed when the tasks were performed robotically. On analysis across the 3 surgeon experience groups, the performance advantage of robotic technology remained significant for the surgical novice and intermediate-level experience groups. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopy may eliminate the operative handedness observed in conventional laparoscopy, allowing for virtual ambidexterity. This ergonomic advantage is particularly evident in surgical trainees. Virtual ambidexterity may represent an additional aspect of surgical robotics that facilitates mastery of minimally invasive skills.
Authors: Joshua A Lee; Michaela F Close; Yuan F Liu; M Andrew Rowley; Mitchell J Isaac; Mark S Costello; Shaun A Nguyen; Ted A Meyer Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Gaby N Moawad; Paul Tyan; Jiheum Paek; Erryn E Tappy; Daniel Park; Souzanna Choussein; Serene S Srouji; Antonio Gargiulo Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2019-01-21
Authors: Tibor A Zwimpfer; Claudine Wismer; Bernhard Fellmann-Fischer; James Geiger; Andreas Schötzau; Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-10-26
Authors: Somayeh B Shafiei; Mohammad Durrani; Zhe Jing; Michael Mostowy; Philippa Doherty; Ahmed A Hussein; Ahmed S Elsayed; Umar Iqbal; Khurshid Guru Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 3.576