Toward scar-free surgery: an analysis of the increasing complexity from laparoscopic surgery to NOTES
NOTES is an emerging technique for performing surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy. Debate about its real benefit over the traditional laparoscopic technique is on-going. There have been several clinical studies comparing NOTES to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, no work has been done to compare these techniques from a Human Factors perspective. This study presents a systematic analysis describing and comparing different existing NOTES methods to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Videos of endoscopic/laparoscopic views from fifteen live cholecystectomies were analyzed to conduct a detailed task analysis of the NOTES technique. A hierarchical task analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and several hybrid transvaginal NOTES cholecystectomies was performed and validated by expert surgeons. To identify similarities and differences between these techniques, their hierarchical decomposition trees were compared. Finally, a timeline analysis was conducted to compare the steps and substeps.
At least three variations of the NOTES technique were used for cholecystectomy. Differences between the observed techniques at the substep level of hierarchy and on the instruments being used were found. The timeline analysis showed an increase in time to perform some surgical steps and substeps in NOTES compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
As pure NOTES is extremely difficult given the current state of development in instrumentation design, most surgeons utilize different hybrid methods—combination of endoscopic and laparoscopic instruments/optics. Results of our hierarchical task analysis yielded an identification of three different hybrid methods to perform cholecystectomy with significant variability among them. The varying degrees to which laparoscopic instruments are utilized to assist in NOTES methods appear to introduce different technical issues and additional tasks leading to an increase in the surgical time. The NOTES continuum of invasiveness is proposed here as a classification scheme for these methods, which was used to construct a clear roadmap for training and technology development.
KeywordsNOTES continuum Laparoscopic surgery Cholecystectomy Hierarchical task analysis Timeline analysis Cognitive task analysis
- 7.Asakuma M, Perretta S, Allemann P, Cahil Rl, Con SA, Solano C, Pasupathy S, Mutter D, Dallemagne B, Marescaux J (2009) Challenges and lessons learned from NOTES cholecystectomy initial experience: a stepwise approach from the laboratory to clinical application. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:249–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Vieira JP, Linhares MM, Caetano EMJ, Moura RM, Asseituno V, Fuzyi R, Girão MJ, Ruano JM, Goldenberg A, de Jesus GLF, Matos D (2012) Evaluation of the clinical and inflammatory responses in exclusively NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic routes: an experimental study in swine. Surg Endosc 26(11):3232–3244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Jones DB, Maithel SK, Schneider BE (2006) Atlas of minimally invasive surgery, 1st edn. Cine-Med Inc, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
- 14.Navez B. (2001) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Epublication: WeBSurg.com. http://www.websurg.com/ref/doi-ot02en012.htm. Accessed 12 Apr 2013
- 16.Bingener J, Gostout CJ (2012) Update on natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(6):384–389Google Scholar
- 20.Kondo W, Wood Branco A, Branco Filho AJ, Noda RW, Tessmann Zomer M, Charles L, Bourdel N (2011) Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (Notes): Surgical Technique and Results. In: Darwish A (ed) Advanced Gynecologic Endoscopy, http://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-gynecologic-endoscopy/transvaginal-natural-orifice-transluminal-endoscopic-surgery-notes-surgical-technique-and-results. Accessed 12 Apr 2013
- 22.Tessier C, Zhang L, Cao CGL (2012) Ergonomic considerations in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): A case study. Work. A J Prev Assess Rehabil 41:4683–4688Google Scholar
- 23.Shackel B (1991) Usability—context; framework; definition; design and evaluation, human factors for informatics usability. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 21–37Google Scholar
- 25.MacKenzie CL, Ibbotson JA, Cao CGL, Lomax AJ (2000) Hierarchical decomposition of goal-directed activity: a valuable research and investigative tool for minimally invasive surgery. In:Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Singapore, pp 409Google Scholar
- 28.Chellali A, Cao CGL (2013) The impact of new instruments on surgical performance in natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. The proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting HFES 2013. San Diego, CA, pp 663–667Google Scholar
- 29.Clark RE, Feldon D, Van Merrienboer JJG, Yates K, Early S (2008) Cognitive task analysis. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, van Merrienboer JJG, Driscoll MP (eds) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar