Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017

Open Access 01-01-2017

Surgical flow disturbances in dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites: an observational study to assess its supposed superiority over conventional suites

Authors: Mathijs D. Blikkendaal, Sara R. C. Driessen, Sharon P. Rodrigues, Johann P. T. Rhemrev, Maddy J. G. H. Smeets, Jenny Dankelman, John J. van den Dobbelsteen, Frank Willem Jansen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is frequently compromised by surgical flow disturbances due to technology- and equipment-related failures. Compared with MIS in a conventional cart-based OR, performing MIS in a dedicated integrated operating room (OR) is supposed to be beneficial to patient safety. The aim of this study was to compare a conventional OR with an integrated OR with regard to the incidence and effect of equipment-related surgical flow disturbances during an advanced laparoscopic gynecological procedure [laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)].

Methods

Using video recording, 40 LHs performed between November 2010 and April 2012 (20 in a conventional cart-based OR and 20 in an integrated OR) were analyzed by two different observers. Outcome measures were the number, duration and effect (on a seven-point ordinal scale) of the surgical flow disturbances (e.g., malfunctioning, intraoperative repositioning, setup device).

Results

A total of 103 h and 45 min was observed. The interobserver agreement was high (kappa .85, p < .001). Procedure time was not significantly different (NS) [conventional OR vs. integrated OR, minutes ± standard deviation (SD), mean 161 ± 27 vs. 150 ± 34]. A total of 1651 surgical flow disturbances were observed (mean ± SD per procedure 40.8 ± 19.4 vs. 41.8 ± 15.9, NS). The mean number of surgical flow disturbances per procedure with regard to equipment was 6.3 ± 3.7 versus 8.5 ± 4.0, NS. No clinically relevant differences in the mean effect of these disturbances on the surgical flow between the two OR setups were observed.

Conclusions

Performing LH in an integrated OR did not reduce the number of surgical flow disturbances nor the effect of these disturbances. Furthermore, in the integrated OR, repositioning of the monitors was a frequent and time-consuming source of disturbance. In order to maintain the high standard of surgical safety, the entire surgical team has to be aware that by performing surgery in an integrated OR different potential source for disruption arise.
Literature
1.
Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW (2004) Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg 239:475–482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Lingard L, Regehr G, Espin S, Whyte S (2006) A theory-based instrument to evaluate team communication in the operating room: balancing measurement authenticity and reliability. Qual Saf Health Care 15:422–426CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Russ S, Arora S, Wharton R, Wheelock A, Hull L, Sharma E, Darzi A, Vincent C, Sevdalis N (2013) Measuring safety and efficiency in the operating room: development and validation of a metric for evaluating task execution in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 216:472–481CrossRefPubMed
4.
Courdier S, Garbin O, Hummel M, Thoma V, Ball E, Favre R, Wattiez A (2009) Equipment failure: causes and consequences in endoscopic gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:28–33CrossRefPubMed
5.
Buzink SN, van Lier L, de Hingh IH, Jakimowicz JJ (2010) Risk-sensitive events during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the influence of the integrated operating room and a preoperative checklist tool. Surg Endosc 24:1990–1995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Hu YY, Arriaga AF, Roth EM, Peyre SE, Corso KA, Swanson RS, Osteen RT, Schmitt P, Bader AM, Zinner MJ, Greenberg CC (2012) Protecting patients from an unsafe system: the etiology and recovery of intraoperative deviations in care. Ann Surg 256:203–210CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Rodrigues SP, Wever AM, Dankelman J, Jansen FW (2012) Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery. Surg Endosc 26:350–356CrossRefPubMed
8.
Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, van der Elst M, Karsten TM, Dankelman J (2007) Problems with technical equipment during laparoscopic surgery. An observational study. Surg Endosc 21:275–279CrossRefPubMed
9.
Weerakkody RA, Cheshire NJ, Riga C, Lear R, Hamady MS, Moorthy K, Darzi AW, Vincent C, Bicknell CD (2013) Surgical technology and operating-room safety failures: a systematic review of quantitative studies. BMJ Qual Saf 22:710–718CrossRefPubMed
10.
Sevdalis N, Wong HW, Arora S, Nagpal K, Healey A, Hanna GB, Vincent CA (2012) Quantitative analysis of intraoperative communication in open and laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 26:2931–2938CrossRefPubMed
11.
van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Pierie JP (2009) Interoperative efficiency in minimally invasive surgery suites. Surg Endosc 23:2332–2337CrossRefPubMed
12.
Herron DM, Gagner M, Kenyon TL, Swanstrom LL (2001) The minimally invasive surgical suite enters the 21st century. A discussion of critical design elements. Surg Endosc 15:415–422CrossRefPubMed
13.
Kenyon TA, Urbach DR, Speer JB, Waterman-Hukari B, Foraker GF, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL (2001) Dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites increase operating room efficiency. Surg Endosc 15:1140–1143CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Lehoux P, Hivon M, Williams-Jones B, Miller FA, Urbach DR (2012) How do medical device manufacturers’ websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations. Med Health Care Philos 15:61–77CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hsiao KC, Machaidze Z, Pattaras JG (2004) Time management in the operating room: an analysis of the dedicated minimally invasive surgery suite. JSLS 8:300–303PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Nocco U, del Torchio S (2011) The integrated OR Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation after two years use, a pilot study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6:175–186CrossRefPubMed
18.
Stavroulis A, Cutner A, Liao LM (2013) Staff perceptions of the effects of an integrated laparoscopic theatre environment on teamwork. Gynecol Surg 10:177–180CrossRef
19.
Cutner A, Stavroulis A, Zolfaghari N (2013) Risk assessment of the ergonomic aspects of laparoscopic theatre. Gynecol Surg 10:99–102CrossRef
20.
National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft Accident Report. Northwest Airlines, Inc. McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, August 16, 1987, NTSB/AAR-88/05. 1988. 10-12-2014
21.
National Transportation Safety Board Aircraft Accident Report. Eastern Airlines, Inc. L-1011, December 29, 1972, NTSB/AAR-73/14. 1973. 10-12-2014
22.
23.
Zheng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA, Swanstrom LL (2008) A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg Endosc 22:2171–2177CrossRefPubMed
24.
Guerlain S, Adams RB, Turrentine FB, Shin T, Guo H, Collins SR, Calland JF (2005) Assessing team performance in the operating room: development and use of a “black-box” recorder and other tools for the intraoperative environment. J Am Coll Surg 200:29–37CrossRefPubMed
25.
Persoon MC, Broos HJ, Witjes JA, Hendrikx AJ, Scherpbier AJ (2011) The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc 25:437–443CrossRefPubMed
26.
den Boer KT, Dankelman J, Gouma DJ, Stassen HG (2002) Peroperative analysis of the surgical procedure. Surg Endosc 16:492–499CrossRef
27.
Tremblay C, Grantcharov T, Urquia ML, Satkunaratnam A (2014) Assessment tool for total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a Delphi consensus survey among international experts. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 36:1014–1023CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Wong SW, Smith R, Crowe P (2010) Optimizing the operating theatre environment. ANZ J Surg 80:917–924CrossRefPubMed
30.
van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, van Veelen MA, Pierie JP (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in the minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:2421–2427CrossRefPubMed
31.
Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, Hoffmann WF, van der Elst M, Dankelman J (2008) Can a structured checklist prevent problems with laparoscopic equipment? Surg Endosc 22:2238–2243CrossRefPubMed
32.
Hsu KE, Man FY, Gizicki RA, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:196–201CrossRefPubMed
33.
Pluyter JR, Buzink SN, Rutkowski AF, Jakimowicz JJ (2010) Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgical procedure? Surg Endosc 24:902–907CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lingard L, Regehr G, Orser B, Reznick R, Baker GR, Doran D, Espin S, Bohnen J, Whyte S (2008) Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. Arch Surg 143:12–17CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Rockstroh M, Franke S, Neumuth T (2014) Requirements for the structured recording of surgical device data in the digital operating room. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:49–57CrossRefPubMed
37.
Makary MA (2013) The power of video recording: taking quality to the next level. JAMA 309:1591–1592CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Glasgow RE, Adamson KA, Mulvihill SJ (2004) The benefits of a dedicated minimally invasive surgery program to academic general surgery practice. J Gastrointest Surg 8:869–873CrossRefPubMed
40.
Kenyon TA, Lenker MP, Bax TW, Swanstrom LL (1997) Cost and benefit of the trained laparoscopic team. A comparative study of a designated nursing team vs a nontrained team. Surg Endosc 11:812–814CrossRefPubMed
41.
Antoniadis S, Passauer-Baierl S, Baschnegger H, Weigl M (2014) Identification and interference of intraoperative distractions and interruptions in operating rooms. J Surg Res 188:21–29CrossRefPubMed
42.
Al-Hakim L, Sevdalis N, Arora S (2012) On surgical disruption: rating, expected operative time or actual wasted time–some comments on Gillepsie et al (2012). BMJ Qual Saf 21:532CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Surgical flow disturbances in dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites: an observational study to assess its supposed superiority over conventional suites
Authors
Mathijs D. Blikkendaal
Sara R. C. Driessen
Sharon P. Rodrigues
Johann P. T. Rhemrev
Maddy J. G. H. Smeets
Jenny Dankelman
John J. van den Dobbelsteen
Frank Willem Jansen
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4971-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Current training on the basics of robotic surgery in the Netherlands: Time for a multidisciplinary approach?

Dynamic Manuscript

Augmented reality in gynecologic surgery: evaluation of potential benefits for myomectomy in an experimental uterine model

New Technology

A novel retractable laparoscopic device for mapping gastrointestinal slow wave propagation patterns

Review

Small bowel obstruction and incisional hernia after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of comparative trials

New Technology

Preclinical safety testing for morcellation and extraction for an endobag with sealable ports: in vitro pilot study

OriginalPaper

Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis