Laura Seohyun Park1, Feiyang Pan1, Daniel Steffens2, Jane Young3, Jonathan Hong4,5. 1. Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. 2. Australia & Faculty of Medicine and Health, Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Central Clinical School, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. 3. The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. 4. Institute of Academic Surgery at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (IAS RPA), Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. Jonathan.hong@sydney.edu.au. 5. Australia & Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. Jonathan.hong@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques such as robotic surgical platforms have provided favourable outcomes for patients, but the impact on surgeons is not well described. This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate the physical and mental impact of robotic surgery on surgeons compared to standard laparoscopic or open surgery. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to identify peer-reviewed English articles published from inception to end of December 2019 on the following databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. The articles were assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa tool. RESULTS: Of the 6563 papers identified, 30 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis of this review. Most of the included studies presented a high risk of bias. A total of 13 and 21 different physical and mental tools, respectively, were used to examine the impact on surgeons. The most common tool used to measure physical and mental demand were surface electromyography (N = 9) and the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; N = 8), respectively. Majority of studies showed mixed results for physical (N = 10) and mental impact (N = 7). This was followed by eight and six studies favouring RS over other surgical modalities for physical and mental impact, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most studies showed mixed physical and mental outcomes between the three surgical modalities. There was a high risk of bias and methodological heterogeneity. Future studies need to correlate mental and physical stress with long-term impact on the surgeons.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical techniques such as robotic surgical platforms have provided favourable outcomes for patients, but the impact on surgeons is not well described. This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate the physical and mental impact of robotic surgery on surgeons compared to standard laparoscopic or open surgery. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to identify peer-reviewed English articles published from inception to end of December 2019 on the following databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase. The articles were assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa tool. RESULTS: Of the 6563 papers identified, 30 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis of this review. Most of the included studies presented a high risk of bias. A total of 13 and 21 different physical and mental tools, respectively, were used to examine the impact on surgeons. The most common tool used to measure physical and mental demand were surface electromyography (N = 9) and the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; N = 8), respectively. Majority of studies showed mixed results for physical (N = 10) and mental impact (N = 7). This was followed by eight and six studies favouring RS over other surgical modalities for physical and mental impact, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most studies showed mixed physical and mental outcomes between the three surgical modalities. There was a high risk of bias and methodological heterogeneity. Future studies need to correlate mental and physical stress with long-term impact on the surgeons.
Authors: Paul Jack Karanicolas; Sean Cleary; Paul McHardy; Alex Kiss; Jason Sawyer; Ramy Behman; Salima Ladak; Stuart A McCluskey; Coimbatore Srinivas; Joel Katz; Natalie Coburn; Calvin Law; Alice C Wei; Paul Greig; Julie Hallet; Hance Clarke Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: V Mendes; Franck Bruyere; Jean Michel Escoffre; Aurelien Binet; Hubert Lardy; Henri Marret; Frederic Marchal; Thomas Hebert Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2019-03-12
Authors: Baptiste Marçon; Willy Ngueyon Sime; Francis Guillemin; Nicolas Hubert; François Lagrange; Céline Huselstein; Jacques Hubert Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2019-09-27