Top

Published in:

01-05-2021 | Review Article

Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions

Authors: Falisha Kanji, Ken Catchpole, Eunice Choi, Myrtede Alfred, Kate Cohen, Daniel Shouhed, Jennifer Anger, Tara Cohen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2021

Abstract

Background

The introduction of a robot into the surgical suite changes the dynamics of the work-system, creating new opportunities for both success and failure. An extensive amount of research has identified a range of barriers to safety and efficiency in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS), such as communication breakdowns, coordination failures, equipment issues, and technological malfunctions. However, there exists very few solutions to these barriers. The purpose of this review was to identify the gap between identified RAS work-system barriers and interventions developed to address those barriers.

Methods

A search from three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline) was conducted for literature discussing system-level interventions for RAS that were published between January 1, 1985 to March 17, 2020. Articles describing interventions for systems-level issues that did not involve technical skills in RAS were eligible for inclusion.

Results

A total of 30 articles were included in the review. Only seven articles (23.33%) implemented and evaluated interventions, while the remaining 23 articles (76.67%) provided suggested interventions for issues in RAS. Major barriers identified included disruptions, ergonomic issues, safety and efficiency, communication, and non-technical skills. Common solutions involved team training, checklist development, and workspace redesign.

Conclusion

The review identified a significant gap between issues and solutions in RAS. While it is important to continue identifying how the complexities of RAS affect operating room (OR) and team dynamics, future work will need to address existing issues with interventions that have been tested and evaluated. In particular, improving RAS-associated non-technical skills, task management, and technology management may lead to improved OR dynamics associated with greater efficiency, reduced costs, and better systems-level outcomes.

Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704PubMedCrossRef

Gupta P, Schomburg J, Krishna S, Adejoro O, Wang Q, Marsh B, Nguyen A, Genere JR, Self P, Lund E (2017) Development of a classification scheme for examining adverse events associated with medical devices, specifically the DaVinci surgical system as reported in the FDA MAUDE database. J Endourol 31:27–31PubMedCrossRef

Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, Brubaker L, Bresee C, Kenton K (2014) Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123:5PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Sussman RD, Peyronnet B, Brucker BM (2019) The current state and the future of robotic surgery in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Turk J Urol 45:331PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Parsons JK, Messer K, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Chang D (2014) Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:845–851PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman B, Fritch J, Gross B, Jagannathan S, Hakami-Majd N, Avenido R, Anger JT (2016) Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc 30:3749–3761PubMedCrossRef

Catchpole KR, Hallett E, Curtis S, Mirchi T, Souders CP, Anger JT (2018) Diagnosing barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery. Ergonomics 61:26–39PubMedCrossRef

Jain M, Fry BT, Hess LW, Anger JT, Gewertz BL, Catchpole K (2016) Barriers to efficiency in robotic surgery: the resident effect. J Surg Res 205:296–304PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Ahmad N, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Sharif M, Allers JC, Hinata N, Ahmad B, Kozlowski JG, Hashmi Z, Bisantz A, Guru KA (2016) Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int 118(1):132–139PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

10.

Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Kozlowski JD, Sharif MA, Winder NM, Ahmad N, Allers J, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2016) The loud surgeon behind the console: understanding team activities during robot-assisted surgery. J Surg Educ 73:504–512PubMedCrossRef

11.

Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MM, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S, Kjellman M, Forsman M (2017) Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc 31:877–886PubMedCrossRef

12.

Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Pearman A, Greenhalgh J, Long A, Gardner P, Gill A, Jayne D, Dowding D (2016) Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams. Cogn Technol Work 18:423–437CrossRef

13.

Catchpole K, Bisantz A, Hallbeck S, Weigl M, Randell R, Kossack M, Anger J (2018) Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: lessons from studies ‘in the wild.’ Appl Ergon 78:270–276PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman B, Fritch J, Gross B, Jagannathan S, Hakami-Majd N, Avenido R (2016) Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc 30:3749–3761PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lai F, Entin E (2005) Robotic surgery and the operating room team. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp 1070–1073

16.

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 143:12–17PubMedCrossRef

17.

Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Rogers SO, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA (2007) Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 204:533–540PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rogers SO, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, Studdert DM (2006) Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery 140:25–33PubMedCrossRef

19.

Bismark MM, Brennan TA, Paterson RJ, Davis PB, Studdert DM (2006) Relationship between complaints and quality of care in New Zealand: a descriptive analysis of complainants and non-complainants following adverse events. BMJ Qual Saf 15:17–22CrossRef

20.

Kaye AD, Vadivelu N, Ahuja N, Mitra S, Silasi D, Urman RD (2013) Anesthetic considerations in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. Ochsner J 13:517–524PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Campos J, Ueda K (2014) Update on anesthetic complications of robotic thoracic surgery. Miner Anestesiol 80:83–88

22.

Young RS, O’Regan DJ (2010) Cardiac surgical theatre traffic: time for traffic calming measures? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 10:526–529PubMedCrossRef

23.

Ofek E, Pizov R, Bitterman N (2006) From a radial operating theatre to a self-contained operating table. Anaesthesia 61:548–552PubMedCrossRef

24.

Brogmus G, Leone W, Butler L, Hernandez E (2007) Best practices in OR suite layout and equipment choices to reduce slips, trips, and falls. AORN J 86:384–394; quiz 395–388

25.

Ahmad N, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Sharif M, Allers JC, Hinata N, Ahmad B, Kozlowski JD, Hashmi Z, Bisantz A (2016) Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int 118:132–139PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Mitchell A, Rowley D, Paterson-Brown S (2008) Debriefing surgeons on non-technical skills (NOTSS). Cogn Technol Work 10:265–274

27.

Russ S, Rout S, Sevdalis N, Moorthy K, Darzi A, Vincent C (2013) Do safety checklists improve teamwork and communication in the operating room? A systematic review. Ann Surg 258:856–871PubMedCrossRef

28.

Hales BM, Pronovost PJ (2006) The checklist—a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care 21:231–235PubMedCrossRef

29.

Collins JW, Dell’Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR (2018) The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training. Eur Urol Focus 4(5):674–676PubMedCrossRef

30.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J (2009) Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

Ghezzi TL, Corleta OC (2016) 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40:2550–2557CrossRef

32.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:210PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

33.

Jing J, Honey MLL (2016) Using a checklist in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy procedures. AORN J 104:145–152PubMedCrossRef

34.

McCarroll ML, Zullo MD, Roulette GD, Mendise TM, Ferris E, Zolton J, Andrews SJ, von Gruenigen VE (2015) Development and implementation results of an interactive computerized surgical checklist for robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. J Robot Surg 9:11–18PubMedCrossRef

35.

Salas E, Rosen MA, Weaver SJ, Held JD, Weissmuller JJ (2009) Guidelines for performance measurement in simulation-based training. Ergon Des 17:12–18

36.

Catchpole K, Russ S (2015) The problem with checklists. BMJ Qual Saf 24:545–549PubMedCrossRef

37.

Ahmed K, Khan N, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2013) Development and content validation of a surgical safety checklist for operating theatres that use robotic technology. BJU Int 111:1161–1174PubMedCrossRef

38.

Allers JC, Hussein AA, Ahmad N, Cavuoto L, Wing JF, Hayes RM, Hinata N, Bisantz AM, Guru KA (2016) Evaluation and impact of workflow interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. Urology 92:33–37PubMedCrossRef

39.

Craven R, Franasiak J, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2013) Ergonomic deficits in robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: a need for intervention. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol 20:648–655CrossRef

40.

Dru CJ, Anger JT, Souders CP, Bresee C, Weigl M, Hallett E, Catchpole K (2017) Surgical flow disruptions during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 24:8814–8821PubMed

41.

Franasiak J, Craven R, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2014) Feasibility and acceptance of a robotic surgery ergonomic training program. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18(4):e2014.00166CrossRef

42.

Myklebust MV, Storheim H, Hartvik M, Dysvik E (2020) Anesthesia professionals’ perspectives of teamwork during robotic-assisted surgery. AORN J 111:87–96PubMedCrossRef

43.

Raheem S, Ahmed YE, Hussein AA, Johnson A, Cavuoto L, May P, Cole A, Wang D, Ahmad B, Hasasneh A (2018) Variability and interpretation of communication taxonomy during robot-assisted surgery: do we all speak the same language? BJU Int 122:99–105PubMedCrossRef

44.

Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Hindmarsh J, Pearman A, Jayne D, Gardner P, Gill A, Kotze A (2019) Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study. BMJ Open 9:e028635PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

45.

Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, Taylor A, Theoharis E, Eisenstein D (2016) Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 20:e2016.00026CrossRef

46.

Schuessler Z, Scott Stiles A, Mancuso P (2020) Perceptions and experiences of perioperative nurses and nurse anaesthetists in robotic-assisted surgery. J Clin Nurs 29:60–74PubMedCrossRef

47.

Sexton K, Johnson A, Gotsch A, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2018) Anticipation, teamwork and cognitive load: chasing efficiency during robot-assisted surgery. BMJ Qual Saf 27:148–154PubMedCrossRef

48.

Song JB, Vemana G, Mobley JM, Bhayani SB (2013) The second “time-out”: a surgical safety checklist for lengthy robotic surgeries. Patient Saf Surg 7:19PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

49.

Souders CP, Catchpole K, Hannemann A, Lyon R, Eilber KS, Bresee C, Cohen T, Weigl M, Anger JT (2019) Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons? Int Urogynecol J 30:2177–2182PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Higginbotham DJ, Sharif M, Kozlowski J, Ahmad B, O’Hara R, Wawrzyniak N, Guru K (2019) Are gestures worth a thousand words? Verbal and nonverbal communication during robot-assisted surgery. Appl Ergon 78:251–262PubMedCrossRef

51.

Tsafrir Z, Janosek-Albright K, Aoun J, Diaz-Insua M, Abd-El-Barr A-E-R, Schiff L, Talukdar S, Menon M, Munkarah A, Theoharis E (2020) The impact of a wireless audio system on communication in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a prospective controlled trial. PLoS ONE 15:e0220214PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

52.

Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Bos P, Broeders IAMJ (2019) Ergonomic assessment of the first assistant during robot-assisted surgery. J Robot Surg 13:283–288PubMedCrossRef

53.

Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Mertens AC, Ruurda JP, Broeders I (2018) Validation of ergonomic instructions in robot-assisted surgery simulator training. Surg Endosc 32:2533–2540PubMedCrossRef

54.

Wastler KE (2015) Robotic surgical and anesthesia communication tool. J Robot Surg 9:97–98PubMedCrossRef

55.

Weber J, Catchpole K, Becker AJ, Schlenker B, Weigl M (2018) Effects of flow disruptions on mental workload and surgical performance in robotic-assisted surgery. World J Surg 42:3599–3607PubMedCrossRef

56.

Weigl M, Weber J, Hallett E, Pfandler M, Schlenker B, Becker A, Catchpole K (2018) Associations of intraoperative flow disruptions and operating room teamwork during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 114:105–113PubMedCrossRef

57.

Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Crestani A, De Gobbi A, Cattaneo F, Moschini M, Vianello F, Valotto C, Dal Moro F, Zattoni F (2015) The value of open conversion simulations during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications for robotic training curricula. J Endourol 29:1282–1288PubMedCrossRef

58.

Zattoni F, Morlacco A, Cattaneo F, Soligo M, Meggiato L, Modonutti D, Valotto C, Dal Moro F, Zattoni F (2017) Development of a surgical safety training program and checklist for conversion during robotic partial nephrectomies. Urology 109:38–43PubMedCrossRef

Title: Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions
Authors: Falisha Kanji
Ken Catchpole
Eunice Choi
Myrtede Alfred
Kate Cohen
Daniel Shouhed
Jennifer Anger
Tara Cohen
Publication date: 01-05-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08231-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2021

Robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy for benign and low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors: a propensity score-matched study

Marginal ulceration following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: risk factors for ulcer development, recurrence and need for revisional surgery

Is peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) more effective than pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Monopolar stray energy in robotic surgery

EAES online educational resources: a survey of the membership of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

Appropriate mesh size in the totally extraperitoneal repair of groin hernias based on the intraoperative measurement of the myopectineal orifice