Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 2145–2158 | Cite as

Effects of robotic manipulators on movements of novices and surgeons

  • Ilana Nisky
  • Allison M. Okamura
  • Michael H. Hsieh
Article

Abstract

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is widely adopted for many procedures but has not realized its full potential to date. Based on human motor control theories, the authors hypothesized that the dynamics of the master manipulators impose challenges on the motor system of the user and may impair performance and slow down learning. Although studies have shown that robotic outcomes are correlated with the case experience of the surgeon, the relative contribution of cognitive versus motor skill is unknown. This study quantified the effects of da Vinci Si master manipulator dynamics on movements of novice users and experienced surgeons and suggests possible implications for training and robot design.

Methods

In the reported study, six experienced robotic surgeons and ten novice nonmedical users performed movements under two conditions: teleoperation of a da Vinci Si Surgical system and freehand. A linear mixed model was applied to nine kinematic metrics (including endpoint error, movement time, peak speed, initial jerk, and deviation from a straight line) to assess the effects of teleoperation and expertise. To assess learning effects, t tests between the first and last movements of each type were used.

Results

All the users moved slower during teleoperation than during freehand movements (F 1,9343 = 345; p < 0.001). The experienced surgeons had smaller errors than the novices (F 1,14 = 36.8; p < 0.001). The straightness of movements depended on their direction (F 7,9343 = 117; p < 0.001). Learning effects were observed in all conditions. Novice users first learned the task and then the dynamics of the manipulator.

Conclusions

The findings showed differences between the novices and the experienced surgeons for extremely simple point-to-point movements. The study demonstrated that manipulator dynamics affect user movements, suggesting that these dynamics could be improved in future robot designs. The authors showed the partial adaptation of novice users to the dynamics. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether it will be beneficial to include early training sessions dedicated to learning the dynamics of the manipulator.

Keywords

Human motor performance Robot-assisted surgery Skill acquisition Skill assessment Manipulator dynamics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Taru Roy and Sangram Patil for assistance with the experiment. This study is supported by a competitive Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Technology Research Grant to Allison M. Okamura and Michael H. Hsieh. Ilana Nisky is supported by the Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship (FP7-PEOPLE-2011-IOF Project 300393) and the Weizmann Institute National Postdoctoral Award Program for Advancement of Women in Science.

Disclosures

Ilana Nisky, Allison Okamura, and Michael Hsieh have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA et al (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chitwood WRJ, Nifong LW, Chapman WHH et al (2001) Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg 234:475–486PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP et al (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14–21PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A et al (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D et al (2006) Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol 49:612–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marescaux J, Leroy J, Rubino F et al (2002) Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications. Ann Surg 235:487–492PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaul S, Shah N, Menon M (2006) Learning curve using robotic surgery. Curr Urol Rep 7:125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reznick RK, MacRae H (2006) Teaching surgical skills: changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 355:2664–2669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Scheele F et al (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 24:536–546PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liss MA, McDougall EM (2013) Robotic surgical simulation. Cancer J 19:124–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79:S70–S81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ugarte DA, Etzioni DA, Gracia C et al (2003) Robotic surgery and resident training. Surg Endosc 17:960–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2006) Robotic surgery training and performance. Surg Endosc 20:96–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tausch TJ, Kowalewski TM, White LW et al (2012) Content and construct validation of a robotic surgery curriculum using an electromagnetic instrument tracker. J Urol 188:919–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiley CE, Lin HC, Yuh DD et al (2011) Review of methods for objective surgical skill evaluation. Surg Endosc 25:356–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi S (2012) Biological learning and control: how the brain builds representations, predicts events, and makes decisions. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin H, Shafran I, Yuh D et al (2006) Towards automatic skill evaluation: detection and segmentation of robot-assisted surgical motions. Comput Aided Surg 11:220–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosen J, Brown JD, Chang L et al (2006) Generalized approach for modeling minimally invasive surgery as a stochastic process using a discrete Markov model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:399–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Megali G, Sinigaglia S, Tonet O et al (2006) Modelling and evaluation of surgical performance using hidden Markov models. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:1911–1919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lendvay TS, Brand TC, White L et al (2013) Virtual reality robotic surgery warmup improves task performance in a dry laboratory environment: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Am Coll Surg 216:1181–1192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Judkins T, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2009) Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc 23:590–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chmarra M, Klein S, Winter JF et al (2010) Objective classification of residents based on their psychomotor laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 24:1031–1039PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hofstad EF, Våpenstad C, Chmarra MK et al (2013) A study of psychomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differentiates expert and nonexpert performance. Surg Endosc 27:854–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters J, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL et al (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135:21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5:1688–1703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheidt RA, Ghez C (2007) Separate adaptive mechanisms for controlling trajectory and final position in reaching. J Neurophysiol 98:3600–3613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morasso P (1981) Spatial control of arm movements. Exp Brain Res 42:223–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hamdorf JM, Hall JC (2000) Acquiring surgical skills. Br J Surg 87:28–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gaba DM, Howard SK (2002) Fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. N Engl J Med 347:1249–1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Holzman IR, Barnett SH (2000) The Bell Commission: ethical implications for the training of physicians. Mount Sinai J Med 67:136–139Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shmuelof L, Krakauer JW, Mazzoni P (2012) How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J Neurophysiol 108:578–594PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Colonnese N, Okamura AM (2012) M-width: stability and accuracy of haptic rendering of virtual mass. In: Robotics: science and systemsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 11:1317–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi M-F et al (2000) Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20:8916–8924PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kluzik J, Diedrichsen J, Shadmehr R et al (2008) Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm? J Neurophysiol 100:1455–1464PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lackner JR, Dizio P (1994) Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. J Neurophysiol 72:299–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yan X, Wang Q, Lu Z et al (2013) Generalization of unconstrained reaching with hand-weight changes. J Neurophysiol 109:137–146PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Imamizu H, Miyauchi S, Tamada T et al (2000) Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool. Nature 403:192–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maravita A, Iriki A (2004) Tools for the body (schema). Trends Cognitive Sci 8:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cardinali L, Frassinetti F, Brozzoli C et al (2009) Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Curr Biol 19:1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Leib R, Karniel A (2012) Minimum acceleration with constraints of center of mass: a unified model for arm movements and object manipulation. J Neurophysiol 108:1646–1655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–464PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB et al (2002) The effect of bench model fidelity on endourological skills: a randomized controlled study. J Urol 167:1243–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Anastakis DJ, Regehr G, Reznick RK et al (1999) Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 177:167–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR et al (2004) The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: the use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg 240:374–381PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Klein J, Spencer SJ, Reinkensmeyer DJ (2012) Breaking it down is better: haptic decomposition of complex movements aids in robot-assisted motor learning: neural systems and rehabilitation engineering. IEEE Trans 20:268–275Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Penhune VB, Steele CJ (2012) Parallel contributions of cerebellar, striatal, and M1 mechanisms to motor sequence learning. Behav Brain Res 226:579–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Arora S, Aggarwal R, Sirimanna P et al (2011) Mental practice enhances surgical technical skills: a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 253:265–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilana Nisky
    • 1
  • Allison M. Okamura
    • 1
  • Michael H. Hsieh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations