Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

01-02-2020

Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?

Authors: Jing Feng, Kun Yang, Zhang Zhang, Man Li, XiaoJia Chen, Zhiyuan Yan, Zhijiang Du, XingHuan Wang

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2020

Abstract

Background

Handheld laparoscopic robotized instruments have been developed to combine the advantages of a robotic operation system and conventional laparoscopic instruments. Direct objective standards are needed to quantify surgeons’ skill level and validate the advantages of new instruments. This study describes and objectively evaluates the use of a robotized instrument using a force-sensing test platform.

Methods

The test platform consists of 12 rings on a hypersensitive force sensor. Forty volunteers were recruited: the expert group included 20 laparoscopic experts and the novice group included 20 medical students in their 4th year without laparoscopic skills. The baseline of the two groups was identified using a conventional needle holder. Participants then repeated the test with the robotized needle holder after training. The maximum force and impulse of each ring were analyzed for each group. Institutional review board approval is not needed for this study.

Results

Significantly lower maximum force and impulse were observed in the expert group than in the novice group during the baseline test (all P < 0.05). After training, a significant difference remained in maximum force and impulse between the two groups using the robotized needle holder (all P < 0.05). Within each group, there was no difference in maximum force or impulse using the robotized needle holder after training compared to that on using the conventional needle holder (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The maximum force and impulse recorded by a test platform can accurately identify participants’ laparoscopic skill level. Six hours’ training can ensure that experts master the use of the robotized needle holder, but this training session is too short for novices to improve their performance with a new instrument. The force-sensing test platform can reflect the suturing characteristics of users based on the skill level and is useful for laparoscopic suture training.

Available only for authorised users

Koh DH, Jang WS, Park JW, Ham WS, Han WK, Rha KH, Choi YD (2018) Efficacy and safety of robotic procedures performed using the da Vinci robotic surgical system at a single institute in Korea: experience with 10000 cases. Yonsei Med J 59:975–981CrossRef

Matthews CA (2009) Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic colposacropexy with the da Vinci^® surgical system. J Robot Surg 3:35–39CrossRef

Yin L, Wang S, Zuo S (2018) Water-jet outer sheath with braided shape memory polymer tubes for upper gastrointestinal tract screening. Int J Med Robot 14:e1944CrossRef

Krebs HI, Celestino J, Williams D, Ferraro M, Volpe B, Hogan N (2004) 24 A wrist extension for MIT-MANUS. In: Bien ZZ, Stefanov D (eds) Advances in rehabilitation robotics: human-friendly technologies on movement assistance and restoration for people with disabilities. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 377–390CrossRef

Dakin GF, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 17:574–579CrossRef

Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX, Cannon GM, Ost MC (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189:1083–1086CrossRef

Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J, Azagury D, Sandler B, Hutter M, Ross S, Haas E, Brody F, Satava R (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci^® surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc 29:2873–2884CrossRef

Sánchez-Margallo JA, Sánchez-Margallo FM (2017) Initial experience using a robotic-driven laparoscopic needle holder with ergonomic handle: assessment of surgeons’ task performance and ergonomics. Int J Comp Assist Radiol Surg 12:2069–2077CrossRef

De Wilde RL, Herrmann A (2013) Robotic surgery—advance or gimmick? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 27:457–469CrossRef

10.

Simon J, Finter F, Ignatius A, Meilinger M, Durselen L (2011) Maximum tensile force of different suture techniques in reconstruction of the renal remnant after nephron-sparing surgery. Surg Endosc 25:503–507CrossRef

11.

Cundy TP, Thangaraj E, Rafii-Tari H, Payne CJ, Azzie G, Sodergren MH, Yang GZ, Darzi A (2015) Force-sensing enhanced simulation environment (ForSense) for laparoscopic surgery training and assessment. Surgery 157:723–731CrossRef

12.

Bensignor T, Morel G, Reversat D, Fuks D, Gayet B (2016) Evaluation of the effect of a laparoscopic robotized needle holder on ergonomics and skills. Surg Endosc 30:446–454CrossRef

13.

De Win G, Van Bruwaene S, Aggarwal R, Crea N, Zhang Z, De Ridder D, Miserez M (2013) Laparoscopy training in surgical education: the utility of incorporating a structured preclinical laparoscopy course into the traditional apprenticeship method. Surg Ed 70:596–605CrossRef

14.

Nguyen NT, Mayer KL, Bold RJ, Larson M, Foster S, Ho HS, Wolfe BM (2000) Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J Surg Res 93:133–136CrossRef

15.

Champion JK, Hunter J, Trus T, Laycock W (1996) Teaching basic video skills as an aid in laparoscopic suturing. Surg Endosc 10:23–25CrossRef

16.

Stefanidis D, Sierra R, Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Markley S, Touchard CL, Scott DJ (2006) Intensive continuing medical education course training on simulators results in proficiency for laparoscopic suturing. Am J Surg 191:23–27CrossRef

17.

Dehabadi M, Fernando B, Berlingieri P (2014) The use of simulation in the acquisition of laparoscopic suturing skills. Int J Surg 12:258–268CrossRef

18.

Horeman T, Dankelman J, Jansen FW, van den Dobbelsteen JJ (2014) Assessment of laparoscopic skills based on force and motion parameters. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 61:805–813CrossRef

19.

Hardon SF, Horeman T, Bonjer HJ, Meijerink WJHJ (2018) Force-based learning curve tracking in fundamental laparoscopic skills training. Surg Endosc 32:3609–3621CrossRef

20.

Yang K, Perez M, Hubert N, Hossu G, Perrenot C, Hubert J (2017) Effectiveness of an integrated video recording and replaying system in robotic surgical training. Ann Surg 265:521–526CrossRef

Title: Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?
Authors: Jing Feng
Kun Yang
Zhang Zhang
Man Li
XiaoJia Chen
Zhiyuan Yan
Zhijiang Du
XingHuan Wang
Publication date: 01-02-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06820-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Feasibility of needlescopic surgery for colorectal cancer: safety and learning curve for Japanese Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System-unqualified young surgeons

A mobile device application (app) to improve adherence to an enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Decline of open surgical experience for general surgery residents

Comparison of robot-assisted modified radical neck dissection using a bilateral axillary breast approach with a conventional open procedure after propensity score matching

Pre-clinical study on a telemetric gastric sensor for recognition of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the “HemoPill monitor”

The impact of component separation technique versus no component separation technique on complications and quality of life in the repair of large ventral hernias