Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of basic manipulation and intracorporeal suturing tasks in a robotic surgical system: single- versus dual-monitor views

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Technical advances in the application of laparoscopic and robotic surgical systems have improved platform usability. The authors hypothesized that using two monitors instead of one would lead to faster performance with fewer errors.

Methods

All tasks were performed using a surgical robot in a training box. One of the monitors was a standard camera with two preset zoom levels (zoomed in and zoomed out, single-monitor condition). The second monitor provided a static panoramic view of the whole surgical field. The standard camera was static at the zoomed-in level for the dual-monitor condition of the study. The study had two groups of participants: 4 surgeons proficient in both robotic and advanced laparoscopic skills and 10 lay persons (nonsurgeons) who were given adequate time to train and familiarize themselves with the equipment. Running a 50-cm rope was the basic task. Advanced tasks included running a suture through predetermined points and intracorporeal knot tying with 3–0 silk. Trial completion times and errors, categorized into three groups (orientation, precision, and task), were recorded.

Results

The trial completion times for all the tasks, basic and advanced, in the two groups were not significantly different. Fewer orientation errors occurred in the nonsurgeon group during knot tying (p = 0.03) and in both groups during suturing (p = 0.0002) in the dual-monitor arm of the study. Differences in precision and task error were not significant.

Conclusions

Using two camera views helps both surgeons and lay persons perform complex tasks with fewer errors. These results may be due to better awareness of the surgical field with regard to the location of the instruments, leading to better field orientation. This display setup has potential for use in complex minimally invasive surgeries such as esophagectomy and gastric bypass. This technique also would be applicable to open microsurgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Southern Surgical Society (1991) A prospective analysis of 1,518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference (1993) Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 269:1018–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosser JC, Rosser LE, Savalgi RS (1997) Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery. Arch Surg 132:200–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cushieri A, Szabo Z (1995) Tissue approximation in endoscopic surgery. Isis Medical Media, Oxford, England, pp 42–139

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garcia-Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller JH, Steiner CP, Hahn JF (1998) Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch Surg 133:957–961

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Margossian H, Garcia-Ruiz A, Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Attaran M, Gagner M (1998) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical uterine horn anastomosis. Fertil Steril 70:530–534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1999) Influence of the optical axis-to-target view angle on endoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 13:371–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 227(4):481–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown S, Frank T, EI Shallaly G, Cuschieri A (2003) Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 17:586–590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Minnich DJ, Schell SR (2003) Evaluation of face-mounted binocular video display for laparoscopy: outcomes of psychometric skills testing and surgeon satisfaction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 13:333–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herron DM, Lantis JC II, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display: a quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies. Surg Endosc 13:751–755

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthroscopy 20:419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cao A, Ellis RD, Composto A, Pandya A, Klein MD (2006) Supplemental wide field-of-view monitor improves performance in surgical telerobotic movement time. Int J Med Robot 2:364–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cao A, Ellis RD, Klein ED, Auner GW, Klein MD, Pandya AK (2007) Comparison of a supplemental wide field-of-view vs a single field-of-view with zoom on performance in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 22:1445–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Carl Freeman for his statistical advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA

    Rachit D. Shah

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Wayne State University, 3160 Engineering, 5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Alex Cao, Gregory W. Auner & Abhilash K. Pandya

  3. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Lavie Golenberg & R. Darin Ellis

  4. Department of Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA

    Michael D. Klein

Authors
  1. Rachit D. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alex Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lavie Golenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Darin Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory W. Auner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abhilash K. Pandya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael D. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Cao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shah, R.D., Cao, A., Golenberg, L. et al. Performance of basic manipulation and intracorporeal suturing tasks in a robotic surgical system: single- versus dual-monitor views. Surg Endosc 23, 727–733 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0046-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0046-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation