Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing visualization in robotic-assisted surgery: demystifying a misty lens

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite major technological advancements in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS), there remain shortcomings yet to be addressed. This study assesses the prevalence of suboptimal vision in minimally invasive RAS and corresponding factors regarding related surgical conditions. 45 minimally invasive robotic surgeries, performed using Da Vinci XI, were observed across three surgical subspecialties: general, urology, and OB/GYN. Lens occlusion events were monitored and defined as the presence of a visual distortion caused by debris deposition on the scope lens. Lens occlusions and cleanings, and “active instrumentation” were recorded. Descriptive statistics summarized duration-based variables, and one-factor ANOVA compared the presence of active instrumentation. Cases averaged 127 ± 76 min. Active instrumentation ANOVA during lens occlusions demonstrated significant variation between categories (F7, 256 = 11.63, p = 2.558e-13). Post hoc Tukey HSD found electrocautery devices were active significantly more during occlusion events (37.9%) than other instruments. On average, lens cleaning occurred every 36.5 ± 39.8 min despite lens occlusion occurring every 24.5 ± 15.7 min. Of the operative time observed, 41.4% ± 28.1% was conducted with visual distortion. 1.16% ± 0.97% of time observed was spent cleaning. Although only 1.16% of operative time was spent cleaning, surgeons experienced suboptimal conditions for nearly 35× the time it would take the clear lens, potentially indicating a tendency to avoid cleaning the lens to disrupt surgery. Future research may examine the impact of occluded visualization and lens cleaning on other aspects of surgery.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Deng W, Liu X, Liu W, Zhang C, Zhou X, Chen L, Guo J, Wang G, Fu B (2021) Functional and oncological outcomes following robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer with a large prostate volume: a retrospective analysis with minimum 2-year follow-ups. Front Oncol 11:3786. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.714680/BIBTEX

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Secretariat MA (2010) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 10:1

    Google Scholar 

  3. Leitao MM, Malhotra V, Briscoe G, Suidan R, Dholakiya P, Santos K, Jewell EL, Brown CL, Sonoda Y, Abu-Rustum NR, Barakat RR, Gardner GJ (2013) Postoperative pain medication requirements in patients undergoing computer-assisted (“Robotic”) and standard laparoscopic procedures for newly diagnosed endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 20:3561–3567. https://doi.org/10.1245/S10434-013-3064-9/TABLES/4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1918911–e1918911. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2019.18911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Robotic Surgery Statistics Show Movement Towards More Minimally Invasive Procedures - iData Research. https://idataresearch.com/robotic-surgery-statistics-show-movement-towards-more-minimally-invasive-procedures/. Accessed 29 Jan 2022

  6. Medical Robotic System Market | 2022 - 27 | Industry Share, Size, Growth - Mordor Intelligence. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-medical-robotic-systems-market-industry. Accessed 29 Jan 2022

  7. Johnson & Johnson Announces Agreement to Acquire Auris Health, Inc. | Johnson & Johnson. https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-announces-agreement-to-acquire-auris-health-inc. Accessed 29 Jan 2022

  8. HugoTM RAS System | Robotic-assisted Surgery | Medtronic. https://www.medtronic.com/covidien/en-us/robotic-assisted-surgery/hugo-ras-system.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2022

  9. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN (2010) Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 252:254–262. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0B013E3181E6239E

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. (2021) Da Vinci X/Xi Instrument & Accessory Catalog Intuitive Surgical Inc. https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/-/media/ISI/Intuitive/Pdf/xi-x-ina-catalog-no-pricing-us-1052082.pdf

  11. Sutton E, Youssef Y, Meenaghan N, Godinez C, Xiao Y, Lee T, Dexter D, Park A (2010) Gaze disruptions experienced by the laparoscopic operating surgeon. Surg Endosc 24:1240–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00464-009-0753-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Manning TG, Perera M, Christidis D, Kinnear N, Mcgrath S, O’beirne R, Zotov P, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2017) Visual occlusion during minimally invasive surgery: a contemporary review of methods to reduce laparoscopic and robotic lens fogging and other sources of optical loss. J Endourol 31:327–333. https://doi.org/10.1089/END.2016.0839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yong N, Grange P, Eldred-Evans D (2016) Impact of laparoscopic lens contamination in operating theaters: a study on the frequency and duration of lens contamination and commonly utilized techniques to maintain clear vision. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26:286–289. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Visualization Accessories | Medtronic. https://www.medtronic.com/covidien/en-us/products/visualization-solutions/visualization-accessories.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2022

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JYD, MG and ZJR. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JYD, MG and ZJR and all authors commented on previous and subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R. Idelson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This is an observational study. No ethical approval is required.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, CI, upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dae, J.Y., Ginjupalli, M., Rickmeyer, Z. et al. Assessing visualization in robotic-assisted surgery: demystifying a misty lens. J Robotic Surg 17, 915–922 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01485-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01485-8

Keywords

Navigation