Literature DB >> 36149590

Assessing the efficacy of dissection gestures in robotic surgery.

Daniel A Inouye1, Runzhuo Ma1, Jessica H Nguyen1, Jasper Laca1, Rafal Kocielnik2, Anima Anandkumar2, Andrew J Hung3.   

Abstract

Our group previously defined a dissection gesture classification system that deconstructs robotic tissue dissection into its most elemental yet meaningful movements. The purpose of this study was to expand upon this framework by adding an assessment of gesture efficacy (ineffective, effective, or erroneous) and analyze dissection patterns between groups of surgeons of varying experience. We defined three possible gesture efficacies as ineffective (no meaningful effect on the tissue), effective (intended effect on the tissue), and erroneous (unintended disruption of the tissue). Novices (0 prior robotic cases), intermediates (1-99 cases), and experts (≥ 100 cases) completed a robotic dissection task in a dry-lab training environment. Video recordings were reviewed to classify each gesture and determine its efficacy, then dissection patterns between groups were analyzed. 23 participants completed the task, with 9 novices, 8 intermediates with median caseload 60 (IQR 41-80), and 6 experts with median caseload 525 (IQR 413-900). For gesture selection, we found increasing experience associated with increasing proportion of overall dissection gestures (p = 0.009) and decreasing proportion of retraction gestures (p = 0.009). For gesture efficacy, novices performed the greatest proportion of ineffective gestures (9.8%, p < 0.001), intermediates commit the greatest proportion of erroneous gestures (26.8%, p < 0.001), and the three groups performed similar proportions of overall effective gestures, though experts performed the greatest proportion of effective retraction gestures (85.6%, p < 0.001). Between groups of experience, we found significant differences in gesture selection and gesture efficacy. These relationships may provide insight into further improving surgical training.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dissection gestures; Robotic surgical training; Surgeon assessment; Surgical errors

Year:  2022        PMID: 36149590     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01458-x

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


  19 in total

1.  Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Jonathan F Finks; Amanda O'Reilly; Mary Oerline; Arthur M Carlin; Andre R Nunn; Justin Dimick; Mousumi Banerjee; Nancy J O Birkmeyer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Utilising the Delphi Process to Develop a Proficiency-based Progression Train-the-trainer Course for Robotic Surgery Training.

Authors:  Justin W Collins; Jeffrey Levy; Dimitrios Stefanidis; Anthony Gallagher; Mark Coleman; Tom Cecil; Anders Ericsson; Alexandre Mottrie; Peter Wiklund; Kamran Ahmed; Johann Pratschke; Gianluca Casali; Ahmed Ghazi; Marcos Gomez; Andrew Hung; Anne Arnold; Joel Dunning; Martin Martino; Carlos Vaz; Eric Friedman; Jean-Marc Baste; Roberto Bergamaschi; Richard Feins; David Earle; Martin Pusic; Owen Montgomery; Carla Pugh; Richard M Satava
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-01-19       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Objective Assessment of Robotic Surgical Technical Skill: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Nathan Cheng; Giovanni Cacciamani; Paul Oh; Michael Lin-Brande; Daphne Remulla; Inderbir S Gill; Andrew J Hung
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Surgical Errors Happen, but Are Learners Trained to Recover from Them? A Survey of North American Surgical Residents and Fellows.

Authors:  Fanny Gabrysz-Forget; Meredith Young; Sarah Zahabi; Dmitry Nepomnayshy; Lily H P Nguyen
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2020-07-18       Impact factor: 2.891

5.  A deep-learning model using automated performance metrics and clinical features to predict urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Hung; Jian Chen; Saum Ghodoussipour; Paul J Oh; Zequn Liu; Jessica Nguyen; Sanjay Purushotham; Inderbir S Gill; Yan Liu
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  The Effect of Technical Performance on Patient Outcomes in Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Andras B Fecso; Peter Szasz; Georgi Kerezov; Teodor P Grantcharov
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Proficiency-based Progression Training: A Scientific Approach to Learning Surgical Skills.

Authors:  Anthony G Gallagher; Ruben De Groote; Marco Paciotti; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Orsi Consensus Meeting on European Robotic Training (OCERT): Results from the First Multispecialty Consensus Meeting on Training in Robot-assisted Surgery.

Authors:  Aude E Vanlander; Elio Mazzone; Justin W Collins; Alexandre M Mottrie; Xavier M Rogiers; Henk G van der Poel; Isabelle Van Herzeele; Richard M Satava; Anthony G Gallagher
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 9.  Training in Robotic Surgery-an Overview.

Authors:  Ashwin N Sridhar; Tim P Briggs; John D Kelly; Senthil Nathan
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Surgeon Automated Performance Metrics as Predictors of Early Urinary Continence Recovery After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy-A Prospective Bi-institutional Study.

Authors:  Andrew J Hung; Runzhuo Ma; Steven Cen; Jessica H Nguyen; Xiaomeng Lei; Christian Wagner
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2021-03-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.