Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2005

01-10-2005 | Original article

Evaluation of surgical performance with standard rigid and flexible-tip laparoscopes

Authors: J.M. Perrone, C.D. Ames, Y. Yan, J. Landman

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Flexible-tip laparoscopes have recently been introduced into clinical practice, with the goal of improving surgeon performance during complex laparoscopic procedures. We used objective and subjective performance parameters to compare standard rigid 0° and 30° lens laparoscopes two flexible-tip laparoscopes in an in vitro model.

Methods

Twenty-nine subjects with varied levels of surgical experience performed complex laparoscopic tasks in three different models simulating (a) prostate dissection from the rectum, (b) cystic duct clipping, and (c) distal posterior rectum dissection. Each task was performed using two Storz rigid laparoscopes (0° and 30°) and two flexible-tip laparoscopes, the Olympus LTF-V3 and the Fujinon EL2-TF310. The sequence of application of the two flexible-tip laparoscopes was randomized. In each case, an experienced laparoscopic camera driver controlled the field of vision. Time to complete each task, operative precision, and subjective surgeon rating scores were compared. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a two-sided fisher’s exact test.

Results

In all three models, the flexible laparoscopes offered no advantage in terms of procedure time, surgical precision, or subjective surgeon rating score when compared with the 30° lens rigid laparoscope. The 30° rigid lens laparoscope and the two flexible-tip laparoscopes were superior to the 0° lens rigid laparoscope for all parameters evaluated, with the exception of subjective rating in the cystic duct model and procedure time in the colorectal model.

Conclusion

In this in vitro experimental model, the flexible-tip laparoscopes found to have no advantage over the standard rigid 30° lens laparoscope. These models were validated, as the 0° lens rigid laparoscope was surpassed by the 30° lens rigid laparoscope and the flexible-tip laparoscopes. Both flexible-tip laparoscopes produced similar results and excellent image quality, but some experience is required before their smooth application can be achieved.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Berber E, Siperstein AE (2001) Understanding and optimizing laparoscopic videosystems. SurgEndosc 15: 781–787 Berber E, Siperstein AE (2001) Understanding and optimizing laparoscopic videosystems. SurgEndosc 15: 781–787
2.
go back to reference Berci G, Forde KA (2000) History of endoscopy: what lessons have we learned from the past? Surg Endosc 14: 5–15CrossRefPubMed Berci G, Forde KA (2000) History of endoscopy: what lessons have we learned from the past? Surg Endosc 14: 5–15CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Boppart SA, Deutsch TF, Rattner DW (1999) Optical imaging technology in minimally invasive surgery, current status and future directions. Surg Endosc 13: 718–722CrossRefPubMed Boppart SA, Deutsch TF, Rattner DW (1999) Optical imaging technology in minimally invasive surgery, current status and future directions. Surg Endosc 13: 718–722CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Cuschieri A (1999) Technology for minimal access surgery. BMJ 319: 1304–1310PubMed Cuschieri A (1999) Technology for minimal access surgery. BMJ 319: 1304–1310PubMed
5.
go back to reference Kourambas J, Preminger GM (2001) Advances in camera, video, and imaging technologies in laparoscopy. Urol Clin North Am 28: 5–14PubMed Kourambas J, Preminger GM (2001) Advances in camera, video, and imaging technologies in laparoscopy. Urol Clin North Am 28: 5–14PubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of surgical performance with standard rigid and flexible-tip laparoscopes
Authors
J.M. Perrone
C.D. Ames
Y. Yan
J. Landman
Publication date
01-10-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2005
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8282-6

Other articles of this Issue 10/2005

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2005 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

The author replies