Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy

Stefanidis, Dimitrios; Hope, William W.; Scott, Daniel J.

doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1512-1

Cited by 69 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As predicted, the surgeons reported experiencing less total workload when performing the tasks on the robotic system compared to the laparoscopic system. This finding supports previous research that has found similar reductions in workload with robotic devices [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…[1], robotic systems offer a high resolution 3-dimensional field of view and improved dexterity which are suggested to benefit the surgeon by reducing the physical and mental demands of a procedure. Indeed, research has shown that these features result in tasks being completed more quickly, accurately, and at a lower workload using a robotic rather than laparoscopic system [4][5][6][7][8]14]. However, the research examining these contentions had some notable limitations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of recent studies have examined the workload associated with performing various surgical tasks on robotic and laparoscopic systems [4][5][6][7]. For example, Panait and colleagues found that surgeons reported lower workloads when completing circle cutting and intracorporeal suturing tasks on a robotic platform compared to a laparoscopic platform [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one study comparing novice robotic surgeons performing the intracorporeal suturing exercise of the FLS program using standard laparoscopy versus da Vinci robotic assistance, participants found standard laparoscopy to be more physically demanding and preferred the robotic platform (62 vs. 38%, p < 0.01) despite achieving significantly higher suturing scores with standard laparoscopy when compared with robotic assistance. 5 Therefore, there is increasing demand from both patients and surgeons to incorporate this technology. The Ontario Health Technology Assessment found that despite high startup and maintenance cost, robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomies and prostatectomies were associated with lower blood loss and hospitalization length.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the da Vinci Surgical Skill Simulator across three surgical disciplines

Alzahrani

Haddad

Alkhayal

et al. 2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In this paper, we evaluate face, content and construct validity of the da Vinci Surgical Skills Simulator (dVSSS) across 3 surgical disciplines. Methods: In total, 48 participants from urology, gynecology and general surgery participated in the study as novices (0 robotic cases performed), intermediates (1-74) or experts (≥75). Each participant completed 9 tasks (Peg board level 2, match board level 2, needle targeting, ring and rail level 2, dots and needles level 1, suture sponge level 2, energy dissection level 1, ring walk level 3 and tubes). The Mimic Technologies software scored each task from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) using several predetermined metrics. Face and content validity were evaluated by a questionnaire administered after task completion. Wilcoxon test was used to perform pair wise comparisons. Results: The expert group comprised of 6 attending surgeons. The intermediate group included 4 attending surgeons, 3 fellows and 5 residents. The novices included 1 attending surgeon, 1 fellow, 13 residents, 13 medical students and 2 research assistants. The median number of robotic cases performed by experts and intermediates were 250 and 9, respectively. The median overall realistic score (face validity) was 8/10. Experts rated the usefulness of the simulator as a training tool for residents (content validity) as 8.5/10. For construct validity, experts outperformed novices in all 9 tasks (p < 0.05). Intermediates outperformed novices in 7 of 9 tasks (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences in the energy dissection and ring walk tasks. Finally, experts scored significantly better than intermediates in only 3 of 9 tasks (matchboard, dots and needles and energy dissection) (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study confirms the face, content and construct validities of the dVSSS across urology, gynecology and general surgery. Larger sample size and more complex tasks are needed to further differentiate intermediates from experts. IntroductionThe American College of Surgeons has recommended simulation-based training for surgical trainees to increase proficiency and patient safety in light of recent restrictions to trainee work hours and increased concerns over patient safety.1 The first validated low-fidelity objective training and assessment tool for basic laparoscopic skills is the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS), which has been adapted by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) for the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program.2 Currently, FLS certification is required for candidates applying for certification from the American Board of Surgery. Furthermore, construct validity of MISTELS has been established for urology trainees and attending urologists.3 Recently, the American Urological Association's Committee on Laparoscopy, Robotic and New Technology modified the original MISTELS/FLS program into a more urocentric curriculum, the Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery (BLUS) skills curriculu...

show abstract

“…11 In several similar studies learning curve was found to be significantly shorter. 12,13 The learning-curve terminology is contributed to the literature of Ramsay et al during the 2000s.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Robotic Surgery and the Learning Curve

Erdemır¹,

Uygur²

2015

Turkiye Klinikleri J Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A AB BS S T TR RA AC CT T O Ob bj je ec ct ti iv ve e: : Robotic surgery is a method that has been increasingly performed recently and provides a lot of convenience for the surgeon. Thirty-four prostatectomy cases performed between 2011-2013 were evaluated to share the experiences of our center related to the factors affecting robotic surgery and the evaluation of the learning curve. M Ma at te er ri ia al l a an nd d M Me et th h--o od ds s: : The cases were divided into five groups, namely: the first fifteen (Group 1a) and the last fifteen (Group 1b) cases; cases with a history of laparotomy (Group 2a, n:22) and those without history of laparotomy (Group 2b, n:12), cases with no postoperative drainage (Group 3a, n:27) and those with postoperative drainage (Group 3b, n:7); those with single operative assistant port (Group 4a, n:26) and those with double operative assistant port (Group 4b, n:8); cases with body mass index (BMI) of over 25 (overweight-obese) (Group 5a, n:27) and those with BMI of under 25 (normal weight, Group 5b, n:7); first seven (Group 6a), second seven (Group 6b), third seven (Group 6c) and last seven (Group 6d). The groups were evaluated according to the trocar time, docking time, console time, bleeding amount, specimen weight, comorbidity, incontinence and surgical margin parameters. R Re es su ul lt ts s: : In our study, it was determined that the learning curve began to build up after case fifteen, and that comorbidities, previous laparotomy, size of the prostate and obesity did not negatively affect the operation, and placing a drainage tube was not beneficial. C Co on nc cl lu us si io on n: : Obesity was determined to be an increasing factor for the bleeding during robotic surgery.K Ke ey y W Wo or rd ds s: : Robotics; learning curve; prostatic neoplasms Ö ÖZ ZE ET T A Am ma aç ç: : Robotik cerrahi gün geçtikçe kullanımı artan, cerraha birçok kolaylık sağlayan bir yöntemdir. Robotik cerrahiyi etkileyen faktörler ve öğrenme eğrisinin değerlendirilmesi yö-nünden merkezimizin tecrübelerini paylaşmak için, 2011-2014 yılları arasında yaptığımız otuzdört prostatektomi olguları değerlendirilmiştir. G Ge er re eç ç v ve e Y Yö ön nt te em ml le er r: : Olgular beş gruba ayrılmış olup, ilk onbeş (Grup 1a) ve son onbeş (Grup 1b) olgular; özgeçmişinde laparotomi olmayan (Grup 2a, n:22) ve laparotomisi olan (Grup 2b, n:12); ameliyat sonunda dren konmayan (Grup 3a, n:27) ve konan (Grup 3b, n:7); asistan portu olarak tek (Grup 4a, n:26) ve çift port kullanılan (Grup 4b n:8); beden kitle indeksi 25 in üzerinde (kilolu-obez) olan (Grup 5a, n:27) ve altında olan (normal kilolu, Grup 5b, n:7); ilk yedi (Grup 6a), ikinci yedi (Grup 6b), üçüncü yedi (Grup 6c) ve son yedi (Grup 6d) olarak altı gruba ayrılmıştır. Gruplar trokar süresi, docking sü-resi, konsol süresi, kanama miktarı, spesmen ağırlığı, komorbidite, inkontinans ve cerrahi sınır parametreleri ile değerlendirilmiştir. B Bu ul lg gu ul la ar r: : Çalışmamızda öğrenme eğrisinin, onbeşinci vakadan sonra oluşmaya başladığı, komorbiditenin, geçirilmi...

show abstract

Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy

Cited by 69 publications

References 17 publications

Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy

Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy

Validation of the da Vinci Surgical Skill Simulator across three surgical disciplines

Factors Affecting Robotic Surgery and the Learning Curve

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About