DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. Benefits of robotic surgery 2 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT AbstractBackground. Research has demonstrated the benefits of robotic surgery for the patient;however, research examining the benefits of robotic technology for the surgeon is limited.This study aimed to adopt validated measures of workload, mental effort, and gaze control to assess the benefits of robotic surgery for the surgeon. We predicted that the performance of surgical training tasks on a surgical robot would require lower investments of workload and mental effort, and would be accompanied by greater gaze control and better performance, when compared to conventional laparoscopy.Methods. Thirty-two surgeons performed two trials on a ball pick-and-drop task and a rope threading task on both robotic and laparoscopic systems. Measures of workload (The SurgeryTask Load Index [SURG-TLX]), mental effort (subjective: Rating Scale for Mental Effort[RSME] and objective: standard deviation of beat-to-beat intervals [SDNN]), gaze control (using a mobile eye movement recorder), and task performance (completion time and number of errors) were recorded.Results. As expected, surgeons performed both tasks more quickly and accurately (with fewer errors) on the robotic system. Self-reported measures of workload and mental effort were significantly lower on the robotic system compared to the laparoscopic system.Similarly, an object...

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9 EPrint URI: http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/2883 DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. We recommend you cite the published (post-print) version.The URL for the published version is http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0493-9 DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT AbstractTechnical surgical skills are said to be acquired quicker on a robotic rather than laparoscopic platform. However, research examining this proposition is scarce. Thus, this study aimed to compare the performance and learning curves of novices acquiring skills using a robotic or laparoscopic system, and to examine if any learning advantages were maintained over time and transferred to more difficult and stressful tasks. Forty novice participants were randomly assigned to either a robotic-or laparoscopic-trained group. Following one baseline trial on a ball pick-and-drop task, participants performed 50 learning trials. Participants then completed an immediate retention trial and a transfer trial on a two-instrument rope-threading task. One month later, participants performed a delayed retention trial and a stressful multi-tasking trial. The results revealed that the robotic-trained group completed the ball pick-and-drop task more quickly and accurately than the laparoscopic-trained group across baseline, immediate retention, and delayed retention tri...

The early learning curve for RALP appears safe and results in equivalent functional and oncologic outcome, when compared with the results of open surgery.

The objective of the audit was to examine the increased morbidity associated with elective tonsillectomy with single-use instruments in a district general hospital in England. Retrospective audit of consecutive case notes of 145 patients who underwent tonsillectomy in a 6-week period after the introduction of single-use instruments was carried out. The main outcome measure was incidence of secondary haemorrhage. In total, 9.5% of patients required re-admission indicated by secondary haemorrhage, 4% required emergency surgery and 43% of the total group had haemostasis achieved with ties. None of these was re-admitted. Out of the total group, 57% had haemostasis achieved with single-use bipolar forceps; 16.8% of these patients were re-admitted, with 7% of this group requiring emergency surgery to control the haemorrhage. Animal tissue experiments and design analysis of the single-use bipolar diathermy highlighted the deficiencies of the initial single-use bipolar diathermy. This was replaced by a new design of single-use diathermy forceps. A second audit was performed which revealed a significant reduction in postoperative morbidity. Complications associated with the introduction of new instruments can be identified by repeated audit cycles.