Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors affecting workflow in robot-assisted surgery: a scoping review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is expanding worldwide. Most research in this field concentrates on surgeons’ technical skills and patient outcome, but research from open and laparoscopic surgery shows that teamwork is crucial for patient safety. Team composition is changed in robot-assisted surgery with the surgeon placed away from the bedside, potentially altering teamwork and workflow in the operating theatre. This scoping review aimed to explore how factors affecting workflow as well as team members’ social and cognitive skills during robot-assisted surgery are reported in the literature.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in the databases Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Reports were screened according to the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Review guidelines. Inclusion criteria were robot-assisted surgery, multi-professional teams, and workflow, flow disruptions, or non-technical skills.

Results

A total of 12,527 references were screened, and 24 articles were included in the review. Articles were heterogeneous in terms of aim, methods and focus. The studies concentrated on two main fields: flow disruptions and the categorization of their causes and incidences; and non-technical skills describing the challenges of communication and effects on situation awareness.

Conclusion

Many studies focused on flow disruptions and found that communication, coordination, training, and equipment/technology were the most frequent causes. Another focus of studies was non-technical skills—primarily communication and situation awareness. Future studies could focus on how to prevent the most harmful flow disruptions and develop interventions for improving workflow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA (2008) The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Heal Care 17:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.023622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rogers SO, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, Studdert DM (2006) Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery 140:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2006.01.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Flin R, O’connor P, Crichton M (2008) Safety at the sharp End: a guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate, Burlington, VT

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, Petersen RH, Østergaard D (2016) Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30:5185–5199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4890-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract 8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169:467. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman B, Fritch J, Gross B, Jagannathan S, Hakami-Majd N, Avenido R, Anger JT (2016) Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc 30:3749–3761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4671-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Catchpole KR, Hallett E, Curtis S, Mirchi T, Souders CP, Anger JT (2018) Diagnosing barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery. Ergonomics 61:26–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1298845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cofran L, Cohen T, Alfred M, Kanji F, Choi E, Savage S, Anger J, Catchpole K (2021) Barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery docking. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08258-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dru CJ, Anger JT, Souders CP, Bresee C, Weigl M, Hallett E, Catchpole K (2017) Surgical flow disruptions during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 24:8814–8821

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. El-Hamamsy D, Walton TJ, Griffiths TRL, Anderson ES, Tincello DG (2020) Surgeon-team separation in robotic theaters: a qualitative observational and interview study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 26:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jain M, Fry BT, Hess LW, Anger JT, Gewertz BL, Catchpole K (2016) Barriers to efficiency in robotic surgery: the resident effect. J Surg Res 205:296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.092

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Souders CP, Catchpole K, Hannemann A, Lyon R, Eilber KS, Bresee C, Cohen T, Weigl M, Anger JT (2019) Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons? Int Urogynecol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03929-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Weber J, Catchpole K, Becker AJ, Schlenker B, Weigl M (2018) Effects of flow disruptions on mental workload and surgical performance in robotic-assisted surgery. World J Surg 42:3599–3607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4689-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weigl M, Weber J, Hallett E, Pfandler M, Schlenker B, Becker A, Catchpole K (2018) Associations of intraoperative flow disruptions and operating room teamwork during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 114:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahmad N, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Sharif M, Allers JC, Hinata N, Ahmad B, Kozlowski JD, Hashmi Z, Bisantz A, Guru KA (2016) Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int 118:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13426

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Allers JC, Hussein AA, Ahmad N, Cavuoto L, Wing JF, Hayes RM, Hinata N, Bisantz AM, Guru KA (2016) Evaluation and impact of workflow interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. Urology 92:33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.02.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Manuguerra A, Mazeaud C, Hubert N, Eschwège P, Roumiguié M, Salleron J, Hubert J (2021) Non-technical skills in robotic surgery and impact on near-miss events: a multi-center study. Surg Endosc 35:5062–5071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07988-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Raheem S, Ahmed YE, Hussein AA, Johnson A, Cavuoto L, May P, Cole A, Wang D, Ahmad B, Hasasneh A, Guru KA (2018) Variability and interpretation of communication taxonomy during robot-assisted surgery: do we all speak the same language? BJU Int 122:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sexton K, Johnson A, Gotsch A, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2018) Anticipation, teamwork and cognitive load: chasing efficiency during robot-assisted surgery. BMJ Qual Saf 27:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Higginbotham DJ, Sharif M, Kozlowski J, Ahmad B, O’Hara R, Wawrzyniak N, Guru K (2019) Are gestures worth a thousand words? Verbal and nonverbal communication during robot-assisted surgery. Appl Ergon 78:251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Kozlowski JD, Sharif MA, Winder NM, Ahmad N, Allers J, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2016) The loud surgeon behind the console: understanding team activities during robot-assisted surgery. J Surg Educ 73:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cunningham S, Chellali A, Jaffre I, Classe J-M (2012) Effects of experience and workplace culture in human-robot team interaction in robotic surgery: a case study. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Randell R, Greenhalgh J, Hindmarsh J, Honey S, Pearman A, Alvarado N, Dowding D (2019) How do team experience and relationships shape new divisions of labour in robot-assisted surgery? A realist investigation. Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459319874115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Almeras C, Almeras C (2019) Operating room communication in robotic surgery: Place, modalities and evolution of a safe system of interaction. J Visc Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, Taylor A, Theoharis E, Eisenstein D (2016) Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tsafrir Z, Janosek-Albright K, Aoun J, Diaz-Insua M, Abd-El-Barr A-E-R, Schiff L, Talukdar S, Menon M, Munkarah A, Theoharis E, Eisenstein D (2020) The impact of a wireless audio system on communication in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a prospective controlled trial. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220214

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Alvarado N, Honey S, Greenhalgh J, Pearman A, Dowding D, Cope A, Long A, Jayne D, Gill A, Kotze A, Randell R (2017) Eliciting context-mechanism-outcome configurations: experiences from a realist evaluation investigating the impact of robotic surgery on teamwork in the operating theatre. Eval Int J Theory, Res Pract 23:444–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389017732172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Randell R, Alvarado N, Honey S, Greenhalgh J, Gardner P, Gill A, Jayne D, BCh M, Kotze A, ChB M, Pearman A, Dowding D (2005) Impact of robotic surgery on decision making: perspectives of surgical teams. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015:1057–1066

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schreyer J, Koch A, Herlemann A, Becker A, Schlenker B, Catchpole K, Weigl M (2021) RAS-NOTECHS: validity and reliability of a tool for measuring non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery settings. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08474-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Moulton CA, Regehr G, Lingard L, Merritt C, MacRae H (2010) Slowing down to stay out of trouble in the operating room: remaining attentive in automaticity. Acad Med 85:1. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f073dd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bruun B, Poulsen JL, Møhl P, Spanager L (2021) Is non-stop always better? Examining assumptions behind the concept of flow disruptions in studies of robot-assisted surgery. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01275-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hollnagel E (2014) Safety-I and safety-II: the past and future of safety management, 1st edn. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dieckmann P, Patterson M, Lahlou S, Mesman J, Nyström P, Krage R (2017) Variation and adaptation: learning from success in patient safety-oriented simulation training. Adv Simul 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-017-0054-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Pearman A, Greenhalgh J, Long A, Gardner P, Gill A, Jayne D, Dowding D (2016) Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams. Cogn Technol Work 18:423–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0368-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. van der Vliet WJ, Haenen SM, Solis-Velasco M, Dejong CHC, Neumann UP, Moser AJ, van Dam RM (2019) Systematic review of team performance in minimally invasive abdominal surgery. BJS Open 3:252–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50133

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received no financial support for the research and authorship of this article. The literature strategy was conducted in collaboration with an information specialist.

Funding

No funding was received to conduct this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Center for Human Resources and Education, The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen, Birgitte Bruun, Doris Oestergaard & Lene Spanager

  2. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen & Doris Oestergaard

  3. Department of Surgery, North Zealand Hospital, Hilleroed, Denmark

    Lene Spanager

Authors
  1. Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Birgitte Bruun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doris Oestergaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lene Spanager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Jannie Lysgaard Poulsen, Birgitte Bruun, Doris Østergaard and Lene Spanager have no conflicts of interest and no financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Poulsen, J.L., Bruun, B., Oestergaard, D. et al. Factors affecting workflow in robot-assisted surgery: a scoping review. Surg Endosc 36, 8713–8725 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09373-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09373-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation