Analysis of Surgeons’ Muscle Activity During the Use of a Handheld Robotic Instrument in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery

  • Francisco M. Sánchez-MargalloEmail author
  • Juan A. Sánchez-Margallo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 482)


The objective of this study is to assess the surgeon’s performance and ergonomics during the use of a robotic-driven handheld laparoscopic instrument in intracorporeal suturing tasks as well as in digestive and urological laparoscopic procedures performed through single-site surgery, and comparing it with the use of conventional instruments. Seven right-handed experienced surgeons took part in this study. Four surgeons performed nine urethrovesical anastomoses on an ex vivo porcine model and three surgeons a partial nephrectomy and a sigmoidectomy on an in vivo animal model. Surgeons used both conventional laparoscopic instruments and the robotic instrument. Execution times, leakage pressure for the anastomosis, surgical complications and surgeons’ muscle activity were measured. Similar results in surgical performance and ergonomics were obtained using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the robotic instrument. Muscle activity of the biceps was significantly higher using the robotic instrument during both surgical procedures.


Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery Handheld robotic instrument Ergonomics Muscle activity 



This work has been partially funded by the Government of Extremadura, Spain, and the European Social Fund (PO14034).


  1. 1.
    Xourafas, D., Tavakkoli, A., Clancy, T.E., Ashley, S.W.: Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open? J. Gastrointest. Surg. 19, 831–840 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Medeiros, L.R., Stein, A.T., Fachel, J., Garry, R., Furness, S.: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 18, 387–399 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delaney, C.P., Chang, E., Senagore, A.J., Broder, M.: Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann. Surg. 247, 819–824 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marks, J.H., Montenegro, G.A., Shields, M.V., Frenkel, J.L., Marks, G.J.: Single-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery shows equivalent or better outcomes to standard laparoscopic surgery: results of a 190-patient, 7-criterion case-match study. Surg. Endosc. 29, 1492–1499 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fan, X., Lin, T., Xu, K., Yin, Z., Huang, H., Dong, W., et al.: Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 62, 601–6012 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaouk, J.H., Autorino, R., Kim, F.J., Han, D.H., Lee, S.W., Yinghao, S., et al.: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: Worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur. Urol. 60, 998–1005 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rais-Bahrami, S., Moreira, D.M., Hillelsohn, J.H., George, A.K., Rane, A., Gross, A.J., et al.: Contemporary perspectives on laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urologic training and practice. J. Endourol. 27, 727–731 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Islam, A., Castellvi, A.O., Tesfay, S.T., Castellvi, A.D., Wright, A.S., Scott, D.J.: Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: a Society of American gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgeons learning center study. Surg. Endosc. 25, 2597–2603 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rassweiler, J.J.: Is LESS/NOTES really more? Eur. Urol. 59, 46–8; discussion 48–50 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berguer, R., Forkey, D.L., Smith, W.D.: Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Endosc. 13, 466–468 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morandeira-Rivas, A., Millán-Casas, L., Moreno-Sanz, C., Herrero-Bogajo, M.L., Tenías-Burillo, J.M., Giménez-Salillas, L.: Ergonomics in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: survey results. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 16, 2151–2159 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pérez-Duarte, F.J., Lucas-Hernández, M., Matos-Azevedo, A., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A., Díaz-Güemes, I., Sánchez-Margallo, F.M.: Objective analysis of surgeons’ ergonomy during laparoendoscopic single-site surgery through the use of surface electromyography and a motion capture data glove. Surg. Endosc. 28, 1314–1320 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pérez-Duarte, F.J., Sánchez-Margallo, F.M., Martín-Portugués, I.D.-G., Sánchez-Hurtado, M.A., Lucas-Hernández, M., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A., et al.: Ergonomic analysis of muscle activity in the forearm and back muscles during laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 23, 203–207 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bensignor, T., Morel, G., Reversat, D., Fuks, D., Gayet, B.: Evaluation of the effect of a laparoscopic robotized needle holder on ergonomics and skills. Surg. Endosc. 30, 446–454 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zapardiel, I., Hernandez, A., De Santiago, J.: The efficacy of robotic driven handheld instruments for the acquisition of basic laparoscopic suturing skills. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 186, 106–109 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sánchez-Margallo, F.M., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A.: Use of a novel robotic laparoscopic instrument with ergonomic design for urethrovesical anastomosis: analysis of muscular activity and posture. International Congress of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Bucharest, Romania (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hermens, H.J., Freriks, B., Merletti, R., Stegeman, D., Blok, J., Rau, G., et al.: SENIAM 8: European recommendation for surface electromyography. Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iacoponi, S., Terán, M., De Santiago, J., Zapardiel, I.: Laparoscopic hysterectomy with a handheld robotic device in a case of uterine sarcoma. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 54, 84–85 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pérez-Lanzac, A., Rosety, J., Okhunov, Z., Soto, J., Garcia-Baquero, R., Ledo, M.J. et al.: Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic hybrid single-site radical prostatectomy: a novel technique using Kymerax. J. Endourol. 27, Part B, Videourology (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nikolov, M., Mekoula, S.T., Hauser, S., Planz, B.: First results comparing between hand-held robotic assisted prostatectomy and conventional radical endoscopic extraperitoneal prostatectomy (Kymerax, Terumo). 25th World Congress on Videourology. Sofia, Bulgaria (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco M. Sánchez-Margallo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan A. Sánchez-Margallo
    • 2
  1. 1.Jesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgical CentreCáceresSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer Systems and Telematics EngineeringUniversity of ExtremaduraBadajozSpain

Personalised recommendations