• Surgical endoscopy · Feb 2010

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload.

    • Dimitrios Stefanidis, Fikre Wang, James R Korndorffer, J Bruce Dunne, and Daniel J Scott.
    • Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Carolinas Simulation Center, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA. dimitrios.stefanidis@carolinas.org
    • Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb 1;24(2):377-82.

    BackgroundIntracorporeal suturing is one of the most difficult laparoscopic tasks. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of robotic assistance on novice suturing performance, safety, and workload in the operating room.MethodsMedical students (n = 34), without prior laparoscopic suturing experience, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board-approved, randomized protocol. After viewing an instructional video, subjects were tested in intracorporeal suturing on two identical, live, porcine Nissen fundoplication models; they placed three gastro-gastric sutures using conventional laparoscopic instruments in one model and using robotic assistance (da Vinci) in the other, in random order. Each knot was objectively scored based on time, accuracy, and security. Injuries to surrounding structures were recorded. Workload was assessed using the validated National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) task load index (TLX) questionnaire, which measures the subjects' self-reported performance, effort, frustration, and mental, physical, and temporal demands of the task. Analysis was by paired t-test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsCompared with laparoscopy, robotic assistance enabled subjects to suture faster (595 +/- 22 s versus 459 +/- 137 s, respectively; p < 0.001), achieve higher overall scores (0 +/- 1 versus 95 +/- 128, respectively; p < 0.001), and commit fewer errors per knot (1.15 +/- 1.35 versus 0.05 +/- 0.26, respectively; p < 0.001). Subjects' overall score did not improve between the first and third attempt for laparoscopic suturing (0 +/- 0 versus 0 +/- 0; p = NS) but improved significantly for robotic suturing (49 +/- 100 versus 141 +/- 152; p < 0.001). Moreover, subjects indicated on the NASA-TLX scale that the task was more difficult to perform with laparoscopic instruments compared with robotic assistance (99 +/- 15 versus 57 +/- 23; p < 0.001).ConclusionsCompared with standard laparoscopy, robotic assistance significantly improved intracorporeal suturing performance and safety of novices in the operating room while decreasing their workload. Moreover, the robot significantly shortened the learning curve of this difficult task. Further study is needed to assess the value of robotic assistance for experienced surgeons, and validated robotic training curricula need to be developed.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.