Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 377–382 | Cite as

Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload

  • Dimitrios StefanidisEmail author
  • Fikre Wang
  • James R. KorndorfferJr.
  • J. Bruce Dunne
  • Daniel J. Scott
Article

Abstract

Background

Intracorporeal suturing is one of the most difficult laparoscopic tasks. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of robotic assistance on novice suturing performance, safety, and workload in the operating room.

Methods

Medical students (n = 34), without prior laparoscopic suturing experience, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board-approved, randomized protocol. After viewing an instructional video, subjects were tested in intracorporeal suturing on two identical, live, porcine Nissen fundoplication models; they placed three gastro-gastric sutures using conventional laparoscopic instruments in one model and using robotic assistance (da Vinci®) in the other, in random order. Each knot was objectively scored based on time, accuracy, and security. Injuries to surrounding structures were recorded. Workload was assessed using the validated National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) task load index (TLX) questionnaire, which measures the subjects’ self-reported performance, effort, frustration, and mental, physical, and temporal demands of the task. Analysis was by paired t-test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic assistance enabled subjects to suture faster (595 ± 22 s versus 459 ± 137 s, respectively; p < 0.001), achieve higher overall scores (0 ± 1 versus 95 ± 128, respectively; p < 0.001), and commit fewer errors per knot (1.15 ± 1.35 versus 0.05 ± 0.26, respectively; p < 0.001). Subjects’ overall score did not improve between the first and third attempt for laparoscopic suturing (0 ± 0 versus 0 ± 0; p = NS) but improved significantly for robotic suturing (49 ± 100 versus 141 ± 152; p < 0.001). Moreover, subjects indicated on the NASA-TLX scale that the task was more difficult to perform with laparoscopic instruments compared with robotic assistance (99 ± 15 versus 57 ± 23; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared with standard laparoscopy, robotic assistance significantly improved intracorporeal suturing performance and safety of novices in the operating room while decreasing their workload. Moreover, the robot significantly shortened the learning curve of this difficult task. Further study is needed to assess the value of robotic assistance for experienced surgeons, and validated robotic training curricula need to be developed.

Keywords

Robotic suturing Laparoscopic suturing Workload Performance assessment Simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    The Southern Surgeons Club (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Southern Surgeons Club. Am J Surg 170:55–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costi R, Himpens J, Bruyns J, Cadiere GB (2003) Robotic fundoplication: from theoretic advantages to real problems. J Am Coll Surg 197:500–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP (1998) An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 30:617–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced vs. standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 6:11–15; discussion 15–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F et al (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marescaux J, Leroy J, Rubino F, Smith M, Vix M, Simone M et al (2002) Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications. Ann Surg 235:487–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 16:1389–1402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Peabody J, Menon M (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 18:63–66; discussion 66–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang L, Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sinanan MN (2003) Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surg Endosc 17:1744–1748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93:553–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45; discussion 45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanchez BR, Mohr CJ, Morton JM, Safadi BY, Alami RS, Curet MJ (2005) Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 1:549–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Curet MJ (2005) Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arch Surg 140:779–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Alami RS, Sanchez BR, Curet MJ (2006) Totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric bypass: results from 75 patients. Obes Surg 16:690–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Sierra R, Stefanidis D, Touchard CL, Scott DJ (2005) Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 201:23–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Markley S, Sierra R, Heniford BT, Scott DJ (2007) Closing the gap in operative performance between novices and experts: does harder mean better for laparoscopic simulator training? J Am Coll Surg 205:307–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young G, Zavelina L, Hooper V (2008) Assessment of workload using NASA Task Load Index in perianesthesia nursing. J Perianesth Nurs 23:102–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W (2007) Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 51:45–55; discussion 56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rozet F, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2006) Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 24:171–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    El-Hakim A, Leung RA, Tewari A (2006) Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 6:11–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heemskerk J, van Gemert WG, de Vries J, Greve J, Bouvy ND (2007) Learning curves of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study evaluating skill acquisition of robot-assisted laparoscopic tasks compared with conventional laparoscopic tasks in inexperienced users. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:171–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gofrit ON, Mikahail AA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL (2008) Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology 71:404–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnston WK III, Hollenbeck BK, Wolf JS Jr (2005) Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Endourol 19:377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD, Philipps C, Lewis C, De Vera RM et al (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182:720–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Satava RM (2004) Future trends in the design and application of surgical robots. Semin Laparosc Surg 11:129–135PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios Stefanidis
    • 1
  • Fikre Wang
    • 2
  • James R. KorndorfferJr.
    • 2
  • J. Bruce Dunne
    • 2
  • Daniel J. Scott
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General SurgeryCarolinas Medical Center, Carolinas Simulation CenterCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryTulane University SOMNew OrleansUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas SouthwesternDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations