Courtney A Green1, Joseph A Lin2, Emily Huang3, Patricia O'Sullivan2,4, Rana M Higgins5. 1. Division of Trauma, Department of Surgery, Critical Care and General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. CourtneyAGreen@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-321, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0470, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Suite 670, 395 W. 12th Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210-1267, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, Room M994, San Francisco, CA, 94122, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic technology affords surgeons many novel and useful features, but two stereotypes continue to prevail: robotic surgery is expensive and inefficient. To identify educational opportunities and improve operative efficiency, we analyzed expert commentary on videos of robotic surgery. METHODS: Expert robotic surgeons, identified through high case volumes and contributions to the surgical literature, reviewed eight anonymous video clips portraying key portions of two robotic general surgery procedures. While watching, surgeons commented on what they saw on the screen. All interactions with participants were in person, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently analyzed. Using content analysis, researchers double-coded each transcript applying a consensus developed codebook. RESULTS: Seventeen surgeons participated. The average participant was male (82.4%), 47 (SD = 6.6) years old, had 13.2 (SD = 8.23) years of teaching experience, worked in urban academic hospitals (64.7%) and had performed 643 (SD = 467) robotic operations at the time of interviews. Emphasis on efficiency (or lack thereof) surfaced across three main themes: overall case progression, robotic capabilities, and instrumentation. Experts verbally rewarded purposeful and "ergonomically sound" movements while language reflecting impatience with repetitive and indecisive movements was attributed to presumed inexperience. Efficient robotic capabilities included enhanced visualization, additional robotic arms to improve exposure, and wristed instruments. Finally, experts discussed instrument selection with regards to energy modality, safety features, cost, and versatility. CONCLUSION: This study highlights three areas for improved efficiency: case progression, robotic capabilities, and instrumentation. Development of education materials within these themes could help surgical educators overcome one of robotic technology's persistent challenges.
BACKGROUND: Robotic technology affords surgeons many novel and useful features, but two stereotypes continue to prevail: robotic surgery is expensive and inefficient. To identify educational opportunities and improve operative efficiency, we analyzed expert commentary on videos of robotic surgery. METHODS: Expert robotic surgeons, identified through high case volumes and contributions to the surgical literature, reviewed eight anonymous video clips portraying key portions of two robotic general surgery procedures. While watching, surgeons commented on what they saw on the screen. All interactions with participants were in person, recorded, transcribed, and subsequently analyzed. Using content analysis, researchers double-coded each transcript applying a consensus developed codebook. RESULTS: Seventeen surgeons participated. The average participant was male (82.4%), 47 (SD = 6.6) years old, had 13.2 (SD = 8.23) years of teaching experience, worked in urban academic hospitals (64.7%) and had performed 643 (SD = 467) robotic operations at the time of interviews. Emphasis on efficiency (or lack thereof) surfaced across three main themes: overall case progression, robotic capabilities, and instrumentation. Experts verbally rewarded purposeful and "ergonomically sound" movements while language reflecting impatience with repetitive and indecisive movements was attributed to presumed inexperience. Efficient robotic capabilities included enhanced visualization, additional robotic arms to improve exposure, and wristed instruments. Finally, experts discussed instrument selection with regards to energy modality, safety features, cost, and versatility. CONCLUSION: This study highlights three areas for improved efficiency: case progression, robotic capabilities, and instrumentation. Development of education materials within these themes could help surgical educators overcome one of robotic technology's persistent challenges.
Authors: Adam C Celio; Kevin R Kasten; Andrea Schwoerer; Walter J Pories; Konstantinos Spaniolas Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.734