Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

Open Access 11-03-2024 | Review Article

Assessment and application of non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

Authors: Vimaladhithan Mahendran, Laura Turpin, Matthew Boal, Nader K. Francis

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2024

Abstract

Background

Undeniably, robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has become very popular in recent decades, but it has introduced challenges to the workflow of the surgical team. Non-technical skills (NTS) have received less emphasis than technical skills in training and assessment. The systematic review aimed to update the evidence on the role of NTS in robotic surgery, specifically focusing on evaluating assessment tools and their utilisation in training and surgical education in robotic surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted to identify primary articles on NTS in RAS. Messick’s validity framework and the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument were utilised to evaluate the quality of the validity evidence of the abstracted articles.

Results

Seventeen studies were eligible for the final analysis. Communication, environmental factors, anticipation and teamwork were key NTS for RAS. Team-related factors such as ambient noise and chatter, inconveniences due to repeated requests during the procedure and constraints due to poor design of the operating room may harm patient safety during RAS. Three novel rater-based scoring systems and one sensor-based method for assessing NTS in RAS were identified. Anticipation by the team to predict and execute the next move before an explicit verbal command improved the surgeon’s situational awareness.

Conclusion

This systematic review highlighted the paucity of reporting on non-technical skills in robotic surgery with only three bespoke objective assessment tools being identified. Communication, environmental factors, anticipation, and teamwork are the key non-technical skills reported in robotic surgery, and further research is required to investigate their benefits to improve patient safety during robotic surgery.

Koukourikis P, Rha KH (2021) Robotic surgical systems in urology: What is currently available? Investig Clin Urol 62(1):14CrossRefPubMed

Kanji F, Catchpole K, Choi E, Alfred M, Cohen K, Shouhed D, Anger J, Cohen T (2021) Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions. Surg Endosc 35:1976–1989CrossRefPubMed

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

Kohn LT, Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS et al (eds) (2000) To Err is human: building a safer health system. National Academies Press, US

Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133(6):614–621CrossRefPubMed

Flin RH, O’Connor P, Crichton M (2008) Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate Publishing, London

Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Robotic KC, Task Force SAGES, Siu KC, Oleynikov D (2020) A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg Endosc 34(1):361–367CrossRefPubMed

Kwong JC, Lee JY, Goldenberg MG (2019) Understanding and assessing nontechnical skills in robotic urological surgery: a systematic review and synthesis of the validity evidence. J Surg Educ 76(1):193–200CrossRefPubMed

Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, Petersen RH, Østergaard D (2016) Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30:5185–5199CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cha JS, Yu D (2022) Objective measures of surgeon non-technical skills in surgery: a scoping review. Hum Factors 64(1):42–73CrossRefPubMed

11.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269CrossRefPubMed

12.

Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O (2016) 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40(10):2550–2557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9CrossRefPubMed

13.

Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H (2011) The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine

14.

Al Asmri M, Haque MS, Parle J (2023) A Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus. BMC Med Educ 23(1):1–8CrossRef

15.

Messick S (1994) Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. ETS Research Report Series 1994(2):i–28CrossRef

16.

Klein MI, Lio CH, Grant R, Carswell CM, Strup S (2009) A mental workload study on the 2d and 3d viewing conditions of the da Vinci surgical robot. Proc Human Factors Ergonom Soc Annu Meet 53(18):1186–1190CrossRef

17.

Ahmed Y, Lone Z, Hussein AA, Feng Y, Khan H, Broad S, Kannappan R, Skowronski A, Cole A, Wang D, Stone K (2019) Do surgeon non-technical skills correlate with teamwork-related outcomes during robot-assisted surgery? BMJ Lead 3:69–74CrossRef

18.

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(2):148–154CrossRefPubMed

19.

AlJamal YN, Baloul MS, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, Kelley SR (2021) Evaluating non-operative robotic skills in colorectal surgical training. J Surg Res 260:391–398CrossRefPubMed

20.

Norasi H, Tetteh E, Law KE, Ponnala S, Hallbeck MS, Tollefson M (2022) Intraoperative workload during robotic radical prostatectomy: comparison between multi-port da Vinci Xi and single port da Vinci SP robots. Appl Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103826CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proc Human Factors and Ergonom Soc Annu Meet 50(9):904–908CrossRef

22.

Boles DB, Bursk JH, Phillips JB, Perdelwitz JR (2007) Predicting dual-task performance with the Multiple Resources Questionnaire (MRQ). Hum Factors 49(1):32–45CrossRefPubMed

23.

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(3):504–512CrossRefPubMed

24.

Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, Taylor A, Theoharis E, Eisenstein D (2016) Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2016.00026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Onofrio R, Trucco P (2020) A methodology for dynamic human reliability analysis in robotic surgery. Appl Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103150CrossRefPubMed

26.

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(11):1282–1288CrossRefPubMed

27.

Melnyk R, Saba P, Holler T, Cameron K, Mithal P, Rappold P, Wu G, Cubillos J, Rashid H, Joseph JV, Ghazi AE (2022) Design and implementation of an emergency undocking curriculum for robotic surgery. Simul Healthc 17(2):78–87CrossRefPubMed

28.

Raison N, Wood T, Brunckhorst O, Abe T, Ross T, Challacombe B, Khan MS, Novara G, Buffi N, Van Der Poel H, McIlhenny C (2017) Development and validation of a tool for non-technical skills evaluation in robotic surgery—the ICARS system. Surg Endosc 31:5403–5410CrossRefPubMed

29.

Schreyer J, Koch A, Herlemann A, Becker A, Schlenker B, Catchpole K, Weigl M (2022) RAS-NOTECHS: validity and reliability of a tool for measuring non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery settings. Surg Endosc 36:1916–1926CrossRefPubMed

30.

Manuguerra A, Mazeaud C, Hubert N, Eschwège P, Roumiguié M, Salleron J, Hubert J (2021) Non-technical skills in robotic surgery and impact on near-miss events: a multi-center study. Surg Endosc 35:5062–5071CrossRefPubMed

31.

Cha JS, Athanasiadis DI, Peng Y, Wu D, Anton NE, Stefanidis D, Yu D (2022) Objective nontechnical skills measurement using sensor-based behavior metrics in surgical teams. Hum Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221101292CrossRefPubMed

32.

Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I, Dankelman J, Forgione A, Langø T, Melzer A, Mintz Y, Morales-Conde S, Rhodes M, Satava R (2015) European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc 29:253–288CrossRefPubMed

33.

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 109:38–43CrossRefPubMed

34.

Carmont M (2005) The advanced trauma life support course: a history of its development and review of related literature. Postgrad Med J 81(952):87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Myklebust MV, Storheim H, Hartvik M, Dysvik E (2020) Anesthesia professionals’ perspectives of teamwork during robotic-assisted surgery. AORN J 111(1):87–96CrossRefPubMed

36.

Raison N, Ahmed K, Abe T, Brunckhorst O, Novara G, Buffi N, McIlhenny C, van der Poel H, van Hemelrijck M, Gavazzi A, Dasgupta P (2018) Cognitive training for technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 122(6):1075–1081CrossRefPubMed

Title: Assessment and application of non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review
Authors: Vimaladhithan Mahendran
Laura Turpin
Matthew Boal
Nader K. Francis
Publication date: 11-03-2024
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10713-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Assessment and application of non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2024

Score prediction of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review

New gel immersion endoscopic ultrasonography technique for accurate periampullary evaluation

Long-term outcomes of PGA-TMC absorbable synthetic scaffold in both clean and contaminated ventral hernia repairs

Validity and reliability evidence support task-specific metrics for laparoscopic fundoplication

Development and validation of a preoperative risk nomogram prediction model for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Clinical analysis of a new multifunctional instrument set for gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy with two different approaches