Toward increased autonomy in the surgical OR: needs, requests, and expectations
- 569 Downloads
The current trend in surgery toward further trauma reduction inevitably leads to increased technological complexity. It must be assumed that this situation will not stay under the sole control of surgeons; mechanical systems will assist them. Certain segments of the work flow will likely have to be taken over by a machine in an automatized or autonomous mode.
In addition to the analysis of our own surgical practice, a literature search of the Medline database was performed to identify important aspects, methods, and technologies for increased operating room (OR) autonomy.
Robotic surgical systems can help to increase OR autonomy by camera control, application of intelligent instruments, and even accomplishment of automated surgical procedures. However, the important step from simple task execution to autonomous decision making is difficult to realize. Another important aspect is the adaption of the general technical OR environment. This includes adaptive OR setting and context-adaptive interfaces, automated tool arrangement, and optimal visualization. Finally, integration of peri- and intraoperative data consisting of electronic patient record, OR documentation and logistics, medical imaging, and patient surveillance data could increase autonomy.
To gain autonomy in the OR, a variety of assistance systems and methodologies need to be incorporated that endorse the surgeon autonomously as a first step toward the vision of cognitive surgery. Thus, we require establishment of model-based surgery and integration of procedural tasks. Structured knowledge is therefore indispensable.
KeywordsMinimally invasive surgery Operating room Robotic systems Structured knowledge Surgical autonomy
Supported in part by DFG project “Single-Port-Technologie für gastroenterologische und viszeralchirurgische endoskopische Interventionen” (FOR 1321).
Dr. med. Kranzfelder, Dipl. Inf. Staub, Dipl. Ing. Fiolka, Dr. Ing. Schneider, PD Dr. med. Gillen, Dr. med. Wilhelm, Prof. Dr. med. Friess, Prof. Dr. Ing. Knoll and Prof. Dr. med. Feussner have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 5.Kranzfelder M, Schneider A, Gillen S, Feussner H (2011) New technologies for information retrieval to achieve situational awareness and higher patient safety in the surgical operating room: the MRI institutional approach and review of the literature. Surg Endosc 25:696–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wolf A, Shoham M (2009) Medical automation and robotics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 9.Huang HM (2006) The autonomy levels for unmanned systems (ALFUS) framework: interim results. Presented at: Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems (PerMIS) Workshop, Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
- 13.Groeger M, Arbter K, Hirzinger G (2011) Motion tracking for minimally invasive robotic surgery. Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, German Aerospace Center, CologneGoogle Scholar
- 22.Mayer H (2008) Human–machine skill transfer in robot assisted, minimally invasive surgery. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, MünchenGoogle Scholar
- 23.Padoy N, Hager GD (2011) Human–machine collaborative surgery using learned models. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Shanghai, China, pp 5285–5292Google Scholar
- 26.Bowa Medical (2012) http://www.bowa-medical.com
- 31.Rosenberg LB (1993) Virtual fixtures: perceptual tools for telerobotic manipulation. Presented at: Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium IEEE, Seattle, WA, pp 76–82Google Scholar