Advertisement

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system

  • J. D. Hernandez
  • S. D. Bann
  • Y. Munz
  • K. Moorthy
  • V. Datta
  • S. Martin
  • A. Dosis
  • F. Bello
  • A. Darzi
  • T. Rockall
Original article

Abstract

Background

Robotic telemanipulation systems provide solutions to the problems of less dexterity and visual constraints of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). However, their influence over surgeons’ dexterity and learning curve needs to be assessed. We present motion analysis as an objective method to measure performance and learning progress.

Methods

Thirteen surgeons completed five synthetic small bowel anastomoses using the da Vinci system. Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) allowed qualitative analysis. Quantitative analysis used API software of the system to retrieve real-time robotic signal data of time, path length, and number of movements. Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used for statistical analysis. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

OSATS global scores were 18.6 points for the first attempt and 26 for the fifth attempt (p < 0.02, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.894). Paired data of motion analysis for attempts 1 vs 5 showed significant change: time taken 3507 sec and 2287 sec (p < 0.008), total number of movements 2411 and 1387 (p = 0.01), total path length 21,630 cm and 13,941 cm (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

A rapid learning curve to a competent level using the da Vinci system is possible aided by the system’s intuitive motion. Motion analysis is a useful tool to measure performance in the da Vinci system compared to OSATS and time alone.

Keywords

Minimally invasive surgery Skills assessment Telemanipulator systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Buess, GF, Schurr, MO, Fischer, SC 2000Robotics and allied technologies in endoscopic surgery.Arch Surg132229235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cadiere, GB, Himpens, J, Germay, O, Izizaw, R, Degueldre, M, Vandromme, J, Capelluto, E, Bruyns, J 2001Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases.World J Surg2514671477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadiere, GB, Himpens, J, Vertruyen, M, Favretti, F 1999The world’s first obesity surgery performed by a surgeon at a distance.Obes Surg9206209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheah, WK, Lee, B, Lenzi, JE, Goh, PMY 2000Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy between two countries.Surg Endosc1410851086Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chitwood, RW, Nifong, LW, Chapman, WHH, Felger, JE, Bailey, BM, Ballint, T, Mendleson, KG, Kim, VB, Young, JA, Albrecht, RA 2001Robotic surgical training in an academic institution.Ann Surg234475486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cichon, R, Kappert, U, Schneider, J, Schramm, I, Gulielmos, V, Tugtekin, SM, Schuler, S 2000Robotic-enhanced arterial revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease.Ann Thorac Surg7010601062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Damiano, RJ, Ehrman, WJ, Ducko, CT, Tabaie, HA, Stephenson, ER, Kingsley, CP, Chambers, CE 2000Initial United States clinical trial of roboticaily assisted endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1197782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darzi, A, Smith, S, Taffinder, N 1999Assessing operative skill.Br Med J318887888Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Datta, V, Mackay, S, Chang, A, Darzi, A 2002The relationship between motion analysis and surgical technical assessments.Am J Surg1847073CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Datta, V, Mackay, S, Mandalia, M, Darzi, A 2001The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory-based model.J Am Coll Surg193479485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falcone, T, Goldberg, J, Margossian, H, Stevens, L 2000Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study.Fertil Steril7310401042Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Falk, V, Mintz, D, Grünenfelder, J, Fann, JI, Burdon, TA 2001Influence of three-dimensional vision on surgical telemanipulator performance.Surg Endosc1512821288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Falk, V, McLoughlin, J, Guthart, G, Salisbury, JK, Walther, T, Gummert, J, Mohr, FW 1999Dexterity enhancement in endoscopic surgery by a computer-controlled mechanical wrist.Minim Invasive Therap Allied Technol8235242Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falk, V, Autschbach, R, Krakor, R, Walther, T, Diegeler, A, Onnasch, JF, Chitwood, WR, Mohr, FW 1999Computer-enhanced mitral valve surgery: Toward a total endoscopic procedure.Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg11244249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faulkner, H, Regehr, G, Martin, J, Reznick, R 1996Validation of an objective structured assessment of technical skill for surgical residents.Acad Med7113631365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goff, BA, Lentz, GM, Mandell, LS 1999Formal teaching of surgical skills in an obstetric gynaecologic residency.Obstet Gynecol93785790CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hinder, RA, Perdikis, G, Klinger, PJ, De Vault, KR 1997The surgical option for gastroesophageal reflux disease.Am J Med103144S148SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Loulmet, D, Carpentier, A, d’Attellis, N, Berrebi, A, Cardon, C, Ponzio, O, Aupecle, B, Relland, JYM 1999Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting with the aid of robotic assisted instruments.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg118410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McMahon, AJ, Russell, AT, Baxter, JN, Ross, S, Anderson, JR, Morran, CG, Sunderland, G, Galloway, D, Ramsey, G, O’Dwyer, PJ 1994Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial.Lancet343135138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacRae, H, Regehr, G, Leadbetter, W, Reznick, RK 2000A comprehensive examination for senior surgical residents.Am J Surg179190193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marescaux, J, Leroy, J, Rubino, F, Smith, M, Vix, M, Simone, M, Mutter, D 2002Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications.Ann Surg235487492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin, JA, Regehr, G, Reznick, R, MacRae, H, Mumaghan, J, Hutchinson, C, Brown, M 1997Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) for surgical residents.Br J Surg84273278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Patkin, M, Isabel, L 1995Ergonomics, engineering and surgery of endosurgical dissection.J R Coll Surg Edinb40120132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prasad, S, Maniar, HS, Soper, NJ, Damiano, RJ, Klingensmith Mary, E 2002The effect of robotic assistance on learning curves for basic laparoscopic skills.Am J Surg183702707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramsay, CR, Grant, A, Wallace, SA, Garthwaite, PH, Monk, AF, Russell, IT 2000Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies.Int J Technol Assess Health Care1610951108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reznick, R, Regehr, G, MacRae, H, Martin, J, McCulloch, W 1997Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination.Am J Surg173226230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ruurda, JP, Vroonhoven, ThJ, Broeders, IAMJ 2002Robot-assisted surgical systems: a new era in laparoscopic surgery.Ann R Coll Surg Engl84223226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott, DJ, Young, Wn, Tesfay, ST, Frawiey, WH, Rege, RV, Jones, DB 2001Laparoscopic skills training.Am J Surg182137142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shea, JA, Healey, MJ, Berlin, JA, Clarke, JR, Malet, PF, Staroscik, RN, Schwartz, JS, Williams, SV 1996Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.A meta-analysis. Ann Surg224609620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, CD, Farrell, TM, McNatt, SS, Metrevel, RM 2001Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills.Am J Surg181547550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taffinder, N, Smith, S, Mair, J, Russell, RC, Darzi, A 1999Can a computer measure surgical precision? Reliability, validity and feasibility of the ICSAD.Surg Endosc13 (suppl 1)81Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Watson, DI, Baigrie, RJ, Jamieson, GG 1996A learning curve for laparoscopic fundoplication: Definable, avoidable, or a waste of time?Ann Surg224198203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Williams, LF, Chapman, WC, Bonau, RA, McGee, EC, Boyd, RW, Jacobs, JK 1993Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy in a single center.Am J Surg165459465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Z’graggen, K, Wehrli, H, Metzger, A, Buehler, M, Frei, E, Klaiber, C 1998Complications of laparoscopic surgery in Switzerland.Surg Endosc1213031310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Hernandez
    • 1
  • S. D. Bann
    • 1
  • Y. Munz
    • 1
  • K. Moorthy
    • 1
  • V. Datta
    • 1
  • S. Martin
    • 1
  • A. Dosis
    • 1
  • F. Bello
    • 1
  • A. Darzi
    • 1
  • T. Rockall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology and TechnologyImperial College School of Medicine, St. Mary’s HospitalLondon, W2 1 NYUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations