Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 727–733 | Cite as

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

  • Rachit D. Shah
  • Alex Cao
  • Lavie Golenberg
  • R. Darin Ellis
  • Gregory W. Auner
  • Abhilash K. Pandya
  • Michael D. Klein



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.


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.


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.


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.


Knot tying Dual monitors Orientation Robotic surgery Suturing Zoom 



The authors thank Carl Freeman for his statistical advice.


  1. 1.
    Southern Surgical Society (1991) A prospective analysis of 1,518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference (1993) Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA 269:1018–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosser JC, Rosser LE, Savalgi RS (1997) Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery. Arch Surg 132:200–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cushieri A, Szabo Z (1995) Tissue approximation in endoscopic surgery. Isis Medical Media, Oxford, England, pp 42–139Google Scholar
  5. 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 133:957–961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margossian H, Garcia-Ruiz A, Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Attaran M, Gagner M (1998) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical uterine horn anastomosis. Fertil Steril 70:530–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1999) Influence of the optical axis-to-target view angle on endoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 13:371–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):481–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown S, Frank T, EI Shallaly G, Cuschieri A (2003) Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 17:586–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 19:1212–1215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 13:333–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 13:751–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomsen MN, Lang RD (2004) An experimental comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional endoscopic systems in a model. Arthroscopy 20:419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 2:364–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 22:1445–1451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachit D. Shah
    • 1
  • Alex Cao
    • 2
  • Lavie Golenberg
    • 3
  • R. Darin Ellis
    • 3
  • Gregory W. Auner
    • 2
  • Abhilash K. Pandya
    • 2
  • Michael D. Klein
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWilliam Beaumont HospitalRoyal OakUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryChildren’s Hospital of MichiganDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations