Literature DB >> 9361614

Influence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance and manipulation angle on endoscopic knot tying.

G B Hanna1, S Shimi, A Cuschieri.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of (1) the direction of view of the endoscope, (2) the endoscope-to-task distance and (3) the manipulation angle between the instruments on intracorporeal endoscopic knotting.
METHODS: Rigid endoscopes (0 degree, 30 degrees and 45 degrees) were introduced with the objective set at distances of 50, 75, 100, 125 and 150 mm from the task. Needle holders were inserted to make 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 degrees manipulation angles. The execution time and knot quality parameters of 2700 knots performed by ten surgeons were obtained.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the execution time or parameters of knot quality with different endoscopes. The longest execution time (median 95 s, P < 0.0001) and the lowest performance quality score (20.61, P < 0.001) were observed at a distance of 50 mm when compared to other distances. A 60 degrees manipulation angle had a shorter execution time (median 71 s, P < 0.0001) and a higher performance quality score (26.84, P < 0.0001) than either 30 degrees or 90 degrees manipulation angles.
CONCLUSION: The direction of view of the endoscope had no significant effect on intracorporeal knotting if the optical axis subtended the same angle with the task surface. The optimal ergonomic conditions include an endoscope-to-target distance of 75-150 mm and a manipulation angle of 60 degrees.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9361614

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  20 in total

1.  The Advanced Dundee Endoscopic Psychomotor Tester (ADEPT) objectifying subjective psychomotor test performance.

Authors:  M P Schijven; J Jakimowicz; C Schot
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-03-05       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Reaction times and the decision-making process in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  B Zheng; Z Janmohamed; C L MacKenzie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Port Placement Planning in Robot-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass.

Authors:  Jeremy W Cannon; Jeffrey A Stoll; Shaun D Selha; Pierre E Dupont; Robert D Howe; David F Torchiana
Journal:  IEEE Trans Rob Autom       Date:  2003-10

4.  Video analysis of endoscopic cutting task performed by one versus two operators.

Authors:  B Zheng; F Verjee; A Lomax; C L MacKenzie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  U Matern; M Faist; K Kehl; C Giebmeyer; G Buess
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-01-10       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  A laboratory study on anticipatory movement in laparoscopic surgery: a behavioral indicator for team collaboration.

Authors:  B Zheng; L L Swanström; C L MacKenzie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-12-16       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Optimum view distance for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  G El Shallaly; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Influence of instrument size on endoscopic task performance in pediatric intracorporeal knot tying: smaller instruments are better in infants.

Authors:  Alex C H Lee; Munther J Haddad; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Skin wound closure with a novel shape-memory alloy fixator.

Authors:  Y Ng; S M Shimi; N Kernohan; T G Frank; P A Campbell; D Martin; J Gove; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display.

Authors:  G B Hanna; S M Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.