Top

Published in:

01-05-2021 | Laparoscopy | New Technology

Improving vision for surgeons during laparoscopy: the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS)

Authors: Bertrand Trilling, Adrian Mancini, Gaëlle Fiard, Pierre Alain Barraud, Marion Decrouez, Sinara Vijayan, Mathias Tummers, Jean Luc Faucheron, Sophie Silvent, Christel Schwartz, Sandrine Voros

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2021

Abstract

Background

For many abdominal surgical interventions, laparotomy has gradually been replaced by laparoscopy, with numerous benefits for the patient in terms of post-operative recovery. However, during laparoscopy, the endoscope only provides a single viewpoint to the surgeon, leaving numerous blind spots and opening the way to peri-operative adverse events. Alternative camera systems have been proposed, but many lack the requisite resolution/robustness for use during surgery or cannot provide real-time images. Here, we present the added value of the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS) which overcomes these limitations and provides a broad view of the surgical field in addition to the usual high-resolution endoscope.

Methods

Experienced laparoscopy surgeons performed several typical procedure steps on a live pig model. The time-to-completion for surgical exercises performed by conventional endoscopy and ELViS-assisted surgery was measured. A debriefing interview following each operating session was conducted by an ergonomist, and a System Usability Scale (SUS) score was determined.

Results

Proof of concept of ELVIS was achieved in an animal model with seven expert surgeons without peroperative adverse events related to the surgical device. No differences were found in time-to-completion. Mean SUS score was 74.7, classifying the usability of the ELViS as “good”. During the debriefing interview, surgeons highlighted several situations where the ELViS provided a real advantage (such as during instrument insertion, exploration of the abdominal cavity or for orientation during close work) and also suggested avenues for improvement of the system.

Conclusions

This first test of the ELViS prototype on a live animal model demonstrated its usability and provided promising and useful feedback for further development.

Available only for authorised users

Tanis PJ, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA (2014) Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 28:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2013.11.017CrossRefPubMed

van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218CrossRef

Anderson SA, Beierle EA, Chen MK (2014) Role of laparoscopy in the prevention and in the treatment of adhesions. Semin Pediatr Surg 23:353–356. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.007CrossRef

Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MHGM, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414882CrossRef

Ratti F, Fiorentini G, Cipriani F, Catena M, Paganelli M, Aldrighetti L (2018) Laparoscopic vs open surgery for colorectal liver metastases. JAMA Surg 153:1028. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McMahon AJ, Fullarton G, Baxter JN, O’Dwyer PJ (1995) Bile duct injury and bile leakage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 82:307–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800820308CrossRefPubMed

Pesce A, Palmucci S, La Greca G, Puleo S (2019) Iatrogenic bile duct injury: impact and management challenges. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 12:121–128. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG.S169492CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Srinivasa S, Bissett IP, Hill AG (2011) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a higher intraoperative complication rate than open surgery. Ann Surg 253:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318204a8b4CrossRefPubMed

Cardin J-L, Johanet H (2011) Intraoperative events and their outcome: data from 4007 laparoscopic interventions by the French “Club Coelio”. J Visc Surg 148:e299–e310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2011.07.008CrossRefPubMed

10.

On behalf of the EAES committees, Francis NK, Curtis NJ, Conti JA, Foster JD, Bonjer HJ, Hanna GB (2018) EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 32:3822–3829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6108-1CrossRef

11.

Curtis NJ, Dennison G, Brown CSB, Hewett PJ, Hanna GB, Stevenson ARL, Francis NK (2019) Clinical evaluation of intraoperative near misses in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003452CrossRef

12.

Cahais J, Schwarz L, Bridoux V, Huet E, Tuech J-J (2017) Is the image “right” for everyone? Introduction to the parallax effect in laparoscopic surgery. J Visc Surg 154:11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.06.007CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wentink M, Breedveld P, Meijer DW, Stassen HG (2000) Endoscopic camera rotation: a conceptual solution to improve hand-eye coordination in minimally-invasive surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 9:125–131. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645700009063059CrossRef

14.

Conrad J, Shah AH, Divino CM, Schluender S, Gurland B, Shlasko E, Szold A (2006) The role of mental rotation and memory scanning on the performance of laparoscopic skills: a study on the effect of camera rotational angle. Surg Endosc 20:504–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0363-7CrossRefPubMed

15.

Trilling B, Vijayan S, Goupil C, Kedisseh E, Letouzey A, Barraud PA, Faucheron JL, Fiard G, Voros S (2020) Enhanced laparoscopic vision improves detection of intraoperative adverse events during laparoscopy. IRBM. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irbm.2020.12.001CrossRef

16.

Tamadazte B, Agustinos A, Cinquin P, Fiard G, Voros S (2015) Multi-view vision system for laparoscopy surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1064-2CrossRefPubMed

17.

Tamadazte B, Fiard G, Long J-A, Cinquin P, Voros S (2013) Enhanced vision system for laparoscopic surgery. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013:5702–5705. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610845CrossRef

18.

Voros S, Moreau-Gaudry A, Tamadazte B, Custillon G, Heus R, Montmasson M-P, Giroud F, Gaiffe O, Pieralli C, Fiard G, Long J-A, Descotes J-L, Vidal C, Nguyen-Dinh A, Cinquin P (2013) Devices and systems targeted towards augmented robotic radical prostatectomy. IRBM 34:139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irbm.2013.01.014CrossRef

19.

Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8:e1000412CrossRef

20.

Barrie J, Russell L, Hood AJ, Jayne DG, Neville A, Culmer PR (2018) An in vivo analysis of safe laparoscopic grasping thresholds for colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 32:4244–4250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6172-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Lallemand C, Gronier G (2016) Méthodes de design UX: 30 méthodes fondamentales pour concevoir et évaluer les systèmes interactifs. Eyrolles, Paris

22.

Brooke J (1996) SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 189:4–7

23.

Bangor A (2009) Determining what individual SUS Scores Mean: adding an Adjective Rating Scale. J Usability Stud 4:10

24.

Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London

25.

Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, Campbell B, Campbell M, Feinberg J, Rovers M, Blencowe N, Pennell C, Quinn T, Rogers W, Cook J, Kolias AG, Agha R, Dahm P, Sedrakyan A, McCulloch P (2019) No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg 269:211–220. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002794CrossRefPubMed

26.

McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet 374:1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8CrossRef

27.

Suzuki N, Hattori A (2013) Development of new augmented reality function using intraperitoneal multi-view camera. In: Linte CA, Chen ECS, Berger M-O, Moore JT, Holmes DR (eds) Augmented environments for computer-assisted interventions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 67–76CrossRef

28.

Silvestri M, Ranzani T, Argiolas A, Vatteroni M, Menciassi A (2013) A multi-point of view 3D camera system for minimally invasive surgery. Sens Actuators A 202:204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2012.12.015CrossRef

29.

Castro CA, Alqassis A, Smith S, Ketterl T, Sun Yu, Ross S, Rosemurgy A, Savage PP, Gitlin RD (2013) A wireless robot for networked laparoscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60:930–936. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2012.2232926CrossRefPubMed

30.

Han WK, Tan YK, Olweny EO, Yin G, Liu Z-W, Faddegon S, Scott DJ, Cadeddu JA (2013) Comparison between magnetic anchoring and guidance system camera-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery nephrectomy and conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery nephrectomy in a porcine model: focus on ergonomics and workload profiles. J Endourol 27:490–496. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0484CrossRefPubMed

31.

Naya Y, Nakamura K, Araki K, Kawamura K, Kamijima S, Imamoto T, Nihei N, Suzuki H, Ichikawa T, Igarashi T (2009) Usefulness of panoramic views for novice surgeons doing retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: panoramic views for novice surgeons. Int J Urol 16:177–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02215.xCrossRefPubMed

32.

Kim J-J, Watras A, Liu H, Zeng Z, Greenberg J, Heise C, Hu Y, Jiang H (2018) Large-field-of-view visualization utilizing multiple miniaturized cameras for laparoscopic surgery. Micromachines 9:431. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi9090431CrossRefPubMedCentral

33.

Sumi Y, Egi H, Hattori M, Suzuki T, Tokunaga M, Adachi T, Sawada H, Mukai S, Kurita Y, Ohdan H (2019) A prospective study of the safety and usefulness of a new miniature wide-angle camera: the “BirdView camera system.” Surg Endosc 33:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6293-yCrossRefPubMed

34.

Rivas-Blanco I, Sánchez-de-Badajoz E, García-Morales I, Lage-Sánchez JM, Sánchez-Gallegos P, Pérez-del-Pulgar CJ, Muñoz VF (2017) Global vision system in laparoscopy. Actas Urol Esp (English Edition) 41:274–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2017.03.007CrossRef

35.

Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondré K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190:107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004CrossRefPubMed

36.

Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278PubMed

37.

Huber T, Paschold M, Schneble F, Poplawski A, Huettl F, Watzka F, Lang H, Kneist W (2018) Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navigation skills: the SALAS score. Surg Endosc 32:4980–4984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6260-7CrossRefPubMed

38.

Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH (2001) Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1204–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640080030CrossRefPubMed

39.

Law KE, Lowndes BR, Kelley SR, Blocker RC, Larson DW, Hallbeck MS, Nelson H (2018) NASA-Task Load Index differentiates surgical approach: opportunities for improvement in colon and rectal surgery. Ann Surg 271:906–912. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003173CrossRef

40.

Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183

41.

Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, Butner SE, Smith MK (2001) Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 413:379–380. https://doi.org/10.1038/35096636CrossRefPubMed

42.

Sotelo R, Nunez Bragayrac LA, Machuca V, Garza Cortes R, Azhar RA (2015) Avoiding and managing vascular injury during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Ther Adv Urol 7:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287214553967CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Lee Z, Kaplan J, Giusto L, Eun D (2016) Prevention of iatrogenic ureteral injuries during robotic gynecologic surgery: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:566–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.150CrossRefPubMed

44.

Picerno T, Sloan NL, Escobar P, Ramirez PT (2017) Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.040CrossRefPubMed

Title: Improving vision for surgeons during laparoscopy: the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS)
Authors: Bertrand Trilling
Adrian Mancini
Gaëlle Fiard
Pierre Alain Barraud
Marion Decrouez
Sinara Vijayan
Mathias Tummers
Jean Luc Faucheron
Sophie Silvent
Christel Schwartz
Sandrine Voros
Publication date: 01-05-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Laparoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08369-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Improving vision for surgeons during laparoscopy: the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS)

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 5/2021

Positive consequences of splenectomy for patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

Efficacy of intraoperative ICG fluorescence imaging evaluation for preventing anastomotic leakage after left-sided colon or rectal cancer surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis

SAGES guidelines for the use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia

Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (Phasix™) mesh onlay in complex abdominal wall repair

Accuracy of endoscopic size measurements of early gastric signet ring cell carcinoma