Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Surgery 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research article

Endoscopic surgery suturing techniques: a randomized study on learning

Authors: F. J. Voskens, E. M. van der Schans, J. P. Ruurda, I. A. M. J. Broeders

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Surgeons have widely adopted endoscopic suturing techniques using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the more advanced robotic systems. The FlexDex is a novel articulating laparoscopic needle driver providing enhanced dexterity in laparoscopic surgery. This study evaluates and compares the learning curve of endoscopic suturing with conventional laparoscopy, the FlexDex and robotic suturing in novices.

Methods

Participants performed a minimal invasive suturing task in three different ways in a randomized order: with a conventional laparoscopic needle driver, using the FlexDex needle driver and third, using the Da Vinci Si surgical system. Primary outcome was suturing task time. Secondary outcome parameters were assessment of suturing quality and workload perception.

Results

A total of 10 novice participants were included and completed a total of 300 sessions. Median (IQR) suturing time of the first 5 sessions was 231 s (188–291) in the laparoscopic group versus 378 s (282–471) in the FlexDex group versus 189 s (160–247) in the DaVinci Si group. The last 5 sessions showed significant reduction of median suturing time of 143 s (120–190), 232 s (180–265) and 172 s (134–199) respectively. Analysis identified that the learning curve for the laparoscopic needle driver and Da Vinci Si was reached in 5 sessions, compared to 8 sessions for the Flexdex. The laparoscopic needle driver and Da Vinci Si showed a significant shorter median suturing time compared to the FlexDex (p = 0.00). The FlexDex quality assessment scores were significantly lower compared to the laparoscopic (p = 0.00) and robotic (p = 0.00) scores and perceived workload remains high for the FlexDex users.

Conclusions

Ex vivo endoscopic suturing with the FlexDex demonstrated a prolonged learning curve compared to laparoscopic and robotic suturing. The learning curve of the FlexDex is fundamentally different from conventional laparoscopic and robotic instruments. This study provides further insights in the implementation and training of endoscopic suturing techniques.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Coccolini F, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015;18:196–204.CrossRef Coccolini F, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015;18:196–204.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kasai M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Surgery. 2018;163(5):985–95.CrossRef Kasai M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Surgery. 2018;163(5):985–95.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bullen NL, et al. Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia. 2019;23(3):461–72.CrossRef Bullen NL, et al. Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia. 2019;23(3):461–72.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lacy AM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9325):2224–9.CrossRef Lacy AM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9325):2224–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Nelson H, et al. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–9.CrossRef Nelson H, et al. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Buunen M, et al. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):44–52.CrossRef Buunen M, et al. Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):44–52.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(1):44–9.CrossRef Lane BR, Campbell SC, Gill IS. 10-year oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(1):44–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wang YZ, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.CrossRef Wang YZ, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:928.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lim S, et al. Laparoscopic Suturing as a Barrier to Broader Adoption of Laparoscopic Surgery. Jsls. 2017;21(3):e2017.00021.CrossRef Lim S, et al. Laparoscopic Suturing as a Barrier to Broader Adoption of Laparoscopic Surgery. Jsls. 2017;21(3):e2017.00021.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Fuchs Weizman N, et al. Survey on barriers to adoption of laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(5):985–94.CrossRef Fuchs Weizman N, et al. Survey on barriers to adoption of laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(5):985–94.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Janki S, et al. Ergonomics in the operating room. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(6):2457–66.CrossRef Janki S, et al. Ergonomics in the operating room. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(6):2457–66.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sánchez A, et al. Robot-assisted surgery and incisional hernia: a comparative study of ergonomics in a training model. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(3):523–7.CrossRef Sánchez A, et al. Robot-assisted surgery and incisional hernia: a comparative study of ergonomics in a training model. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(3):523–7.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ruurda JP, van Vroonhoven TJMV, Broeders IAMJ. Robot-assisted surgical systems: a new era in laparoscopic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002;84(4):223–6.CrossRef Ruurda JP, van Vroonhoven TJMV, Broeders IAMJ. Robot-assisted surgical systems: a new era in laparoscopic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2002;84(4):223–6.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Boyd WD, et al. A comparison of robot-assisted versus manually constructed endoscopic coronary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70(3):839–42.CrossRef Boyd WD, et al. A comparison of robot-assisted versus manually constructed endoscopic coronary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70(3):839–42.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference van der Schatte Olivier RH, et al. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1365–71.CrossRef van der Schatte Olivier RH, et al. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1365–71.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Stefanidis D, et al. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(2):377–82.CrossRef Stefanidis D, et al. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(2):377–82.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Chandra V, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery. 2010;147(6):830–9.CrossRef Chandra V, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery. 2010;147(6):830–9.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Liu R, Liu Q, Wang Z. Worldwide diffusion of robotic approach in general surgery. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):795–7.CrossRef Liu R, Liu Q, Wang Z. Worldwide diffusion of robotic approach in general surgery. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):795–7.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sieber MA, Fellmann-Fischer B, Mueller M. Performance of Kymerax© precision-drive articulating surgical system compared to conventional laparoscopic instruments in a pelvitrainer model. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):4298–308.CrossRef Sieber MA, Fellmann-Fischer B, Mueller M. Performance of Kymerax© precision-drive articulating surgical system compared to conventional laparoscopic instruments in a pelvitrainer model. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):4298–308.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Di Lorenzo N, Camperchioli I, Gaspari AL. Radius surgical system and conventional laparoscopic instruments in abdominal surgery: application, learning curve and ergonomy. Surg Oncol. 2007;16(Suppl 1):S69-72.CrossRef Di Lorenzo N, Camperchioli I, Gaspari AL. Radius surgical system and conventional laparoscopic instruments in abdominal surgery: application, learning curve and ergonomy. Surg Oncol. 2007;16(Suppl 1):S69-72.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Waseda M, et al. Precision in stitches: Radius Surgical System. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(11):2056–62.CrossRef Waseda M, et al. Precision in stitches: Radius Surgical System. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(11):2056–62.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sánchez-Margallo, F., J.A. Sánchez-Margallo, and AmirSzold. Handheld Devices for Laparoscopic Surgery. 2018. Sánchez-Margallo, F., J.A. Sánchez-Margallo, and AmirSzold. Handheld Devices for Laparoscopic Surgery. 2018.
23.
go back to reference Criss CN, et al. Evaluating a solely mechanical articulating laparoscopic device: a prospective randomized crossover study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29(4):542–50.CrossRef Criss CN, et al. Evaluating a solely mechanical articulating laparoscopic device: a prospective randomized crossover study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29(4):542–50.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Leijte E, et al. Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(8):3679–89.CrossRef Leijte E, et al. Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(8):3679–89.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Maniar HS, et al. Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: implications on training and adoption. J Surg Res. 2005;125(1):23–9.CrossRef Maniar HS, et al. Comparison of skill training with robotic systems and traditional endoscopy: implications on training and adoption. J Surg Res. 2005;125(1):23–9.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Moorthy K, et al. Bimodal assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills: construct and concurrent validity. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(11):1608–12.PubMed Moorthy K, et al. Bimodal assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills: construct and concurrent validity. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(11):1608–12.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Hart S. Development of NASA-TLX: results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. North-Holland: San Jose State University; 1988. Hart S. Development of NASA-TLX: results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. North-Holland: San Jose State University; 1988.
28.
go back to reference Frede T, et al. The radius surgical system—a new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology? Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):1015–22.CrossRef Frede T, et al. The radius surgical system—a new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology? Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):1015–22.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Anderson PL, et al. Comparing a mechanical analogue with the Da Vinci user interface: suturing at challenging angles. IEEE Robot Autom Lett. 2016;1(2):1060–5.CrossRef Anderson PL, et al. Comparing a mechanical analogue with the Da Vinci user interface: suturing at challenging angles. IEEE Robot Autom Lett. 2016;1(2):1060–5.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Smith CD, et al. Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Am J Surg. 2001;181(6):547–50.CrossRef Smith CD, et al. Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Am J Surg. 2001;181(6):547–50.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Abiri A, et al. Tensile strength and failure load of sutures for robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(8):3258–70.CrossRef Abiri A, et al. Tensile strength and failure load of sutures for robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(8):3258–70.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Cundy TP, et al. Experience related factors compensate for haptic loss in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28(5):532–8.CrossRef Cundy TP, et al. Experience related factors compensate for haptic loss in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28(5):532–8.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Meccariello G, et al. An experimental study about haptic feedback in robotic surgery: may visual feedback substitute tactile feedback? J Robot Surg. 2016;10(1):57–61.CrossRef Meccariello G, et al. An experimental study about haptic feedback in robotic surgery: may visual feedback substitute tactile feedback? J Robot Surg. 2016;10(1):57–61.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Endoscopic surgery suturing techniques: a randomized study on learning
Authors
F. J. Voskens
E. M. van der Schans
J. P. Ruurda
I. A. M. J. Broeders
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01513-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Surgery 1/2022 Go to the issue