Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2011

01-07-2011

Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy

Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis, William W. Hope, Daniel J. Scott

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 7/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The value of robotic assistance for intracorporeal suturing is not well defined. We compared robotic suturing with laparoscopic suturing on the FLS model with a large cohort of surgeons.

Methods

Attendees (n = 117) at the SAGES 2006 Learning Center robotic station placed intracorporeal sutures on the FLS box-trainer model using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the da Vinci® robot. Participant performance was recorded using a validated objective scoring system, and a questionnaire regarding demographics, task workload, and suturing modality preference was completed. Construct validity for both tasks was assessed by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience. A validated questionnaire was used for workload measurement.

Results

Of the participants, 84% had prior laparoscopic and 10% prior robotic suturing experience. Within the allotted time, 83% of participants completed the suturing task laparoscopically and 72% with the robot. Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulated tasks according to the participants’ advanced laparoscopic experience, laparoscopic suturing experience, and self-reported laparoscopic suturing ability (p < 0.001 for all) and according to prior robotic experience, robotic suturing experience, and self-reported robotic suturing ability (p < 0.001 for all), respectively. While participants achieved higher suturing scores with standard laparoscopy compared with the robot (84 ± 75 vs. 56 ± 63, respectively; p < 0.001), they found the laparoscopic task more physically demanding (NASA score 13 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 5, respectively; p < 0.001) and favored the robot as their method of choice for intracorporeal suturing (62 vs. 38%, respectively; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Construct validity was demonstrated for robotic suturing on the FLS model. Suturing scores were higher using standard laparoscopy likely as a result of the participants’ greater experience with laparoscopic suturing versus robotic suturing. Robotic assistance decreases the physical demand of intracorporeal suturing compared with conventional laparoscopy and, in this study, was the preferred suturing method by most surgeons. Curricula for robotic suturing training need to be developed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Allen JW, Rivas H, Cocchione RN, Ferzli GS (2003) Intracorporeal suturing and knot tying broadens the clinical applicability of laparoscopy. JSLS 7:137–140PubMed Allen JW, Rivas H, Cocchione RN, Ferzli GS (2003) Intracorporeal suturing and knot tying broadens the clinical applicability of laparoscopy. JSLS 7:137–140PubMed
2.
go back to reference Kenngott HG, Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Rassweiler J, Gutt CN (2008) Robotic suturing: technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17:160–167PubMedCrossRef Kenngott HG, Muller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Rassweiler J, Gutt CN (2008) Robotic suturing: technique and benefit in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17:160–167PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83PubMedCrossRef Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45 (discussion 45)PubMedCrossRef Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45 (discussion 45)PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Alami RS, Sanchez BR, Curet MJ (2006) Totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from 75 patients. Obes Surg 16:690–696PubMedCrossRef Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Alami RS, Sanchez BR, Curet MJ (2006) Totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results from 75 patients. Obes Surg 16:690–696PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Sanchez BR, Mohr CJ, Morton JM, Safadi BY, Alami RS, Curet MJ (2005) Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 1:549–554PubMedCrossRef Sanchez BR, Mohr CJ, Morton JM, Safadi BY, Alami RS, Curet MJ (2005) Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 1:549–554PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Curet MJ (2005) Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arch Surg 140:779–786PubMedCrossRef Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Curet MJ (2005) Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arch Surg 140:779–786PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397PubMedCrossRef Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW (2004) Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rassweiler J, Safi KC, Subotic S, Teber D, Frede T (2005) Robotics and telesurgery—an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14:109–122PubMedCrossRef Rassweiler J, Safi KC, Subotic S, Teber D, Frede T (2005) Robotics and telesurgery—an update on their position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14:109–122PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Sierra R, Stefanidis D, Touchard CL, Scott DJ (2005) Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 201:23–29PubMedCrossRef Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Sierra R, Stefanidis D, Touchard CL, Scott DJ (2005) Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 201:23–29PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRef Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Scott DJ (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24(2):377–382PubMedCrossRef Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Scott DJ (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24(2):377–382PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795PubMed Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795PubMed
14.
go back to reference Marecik SJ, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Jan A, Chaudhry V (2008) Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis. Am J Surg 195:333–337 (discussion 337–338)PubMedCrossRef Marecik SJ, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Jan A, Chaudhry V (2008) Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis. Am J Surg 195:333–337 (discussion 337–338)PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ruurda JP, Broeders IA, Pulles B, Kappelhof FM, van der Werken C (2004) Manual robot assisted endoscopic suturing: time-action analysis in an experimental model. Surg Endosc 18:1249–1252PubMedCrossRef Ruurda JP, Broeders IA, Pulles B, Kappelhof FM, van der Werken C (2004) Manual robot assisted endoscopic suturing: time-action analysis in an experimental model. Surg Endosc 18:1249–1252PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Chang L, Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sinanan MN (2003) Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surg Endosc 17:1744–1748PubMedCrossRef Chang L, Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sinanan MN (2003) Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surg Endosc 17:1744–1748PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy
Authors
Dimitrios Stefanidis
William W. Hope
Daniel J. Scott
Publication date
01-07-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 7/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1512-1

Other articles of this Issue 7/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2011 Go to the issue