Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Robotic laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of abdominal pathologies. However, current training techniques rely on subjective evaluation. The authors sought to identify objective measures of robotic surgical performance by comparing novices and experts during three training tasks.

Methods

Five novices (medical students) were trained in three tasks with the da Vinci Surgical System. Five experts trained in advanced laparoscopy also performed the three tasks. Time to task completion (TTC), total distance traveled (D), speed (S), curvature (κ), and relative phase (Φ) were measured.

Results

Before training, TTC, D, and κ were significantly smaller for experts than for novices (p < 0.05), whereas S was significantly larger for experts than for novices before training (p < 0.05). Novices performed significantly better after training, as shown by smaller TTC, D, and κ, and larger S. Novice performance after training approached expert performance.

Conclusion

This study clearly demonstrated the ability of objective kinematic measures to distinguish between novice and expert performance and training effects in the performance of robotic surgical training tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Talamini MA, Stanfield CL, Chang DC, Wu AW (2004) The surgical recovery index. Surg Endosc 18:596–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, Mehrabi A, Buchler MW (2004) Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 18:898–906

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinee S, Abbou CC, Eypasch E, Garcia Caballero M, Lumsden MA, Millat B, Monson JRT, Nilsson G, Pointner R, Schwenk W, Shamiyeh A, Szold A, Targarona E, Ure B, Neugebauer E (2004) Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:879–897

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. McClure N, Gallagher AG, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP (1997) An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in endoscopic skill acquisition. Gynaecol Endosc 6:90

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH (2001) Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1204–1207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Berguer R, Rab GT, Abu-Ghaida H, Alarcon A, Chung J (1997) A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 11:139–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Annibale AMD, Fiscon VMD, Trevisan PMD, Pozzobon MMD, Gianfreda VMD, Sovernigo GMD, Morpurgo EMD, Orsini CMD, Del Monte DMD (2004) The da Vinci robot in right adrenalectomy: considerations on technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:38–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Munz Y, Moorthy K, Dosis A, Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Bello F, Martin S, Darzi A, Rockall T (2004) The benefits of stereoscopic vision in robotic-assisted performance on bench models. Surg Endosc 18:611–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Martin S, Dosis A, Bello F, Darzi A, Rockall T (2004) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 18:372–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang L, Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sinanan MN (2003) Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surg Endosc 17:1744–1748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacobsen G, Elli F, Horgan S (2004) Robotic surgery update. Surg Endosc 18:1186–1191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bann SD, Khan MS, Hernandez J, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Rockall T, Darzi A (2003) Robotics in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 196:784–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smillie MF (2003) Intuitive surgical. The Seidler Companies, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

  14. Hashizume M, Shimada M, Tomikawa M, Ikeda Y, Takahashi I, Abe R, Koga F, Gotoh N, Konish K, Maehara S, Sugimachi K (2002) Early experiences of endoscopic procedures in general surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surg Endosc 16:1187–1191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hubens G, Coveliers H, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Vaneerdeweg W (2003) A performance study comparing manual and robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 17:1595–1599

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Prasad SM, Maniar HS, Soper NJ, Damiano RJ, Klingensmith ME (2002) The effect of robotic assistance on learning curves for basic laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 183:702–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Peabody J, Menon M (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 18:63–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rose DJ (1997) A multilevel approach to the study of motor control and learning. Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA

    Google Scholar 

  19. Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2006) Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency. Surg Endosc 20:96–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2007) Objective assessment of proficiency with bimanual inanimate tasks in robotic laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 17:47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2005) Real-time augmented feedback benefits robotic laparoscopic training. Stud Health Technol Inform 119:243–248

    Google Scholar 

  22. Craig JJ (1989) Introduction to robotics: mechanics and control. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA

  23. Gray A (1997) Modern differential geometry of curves and surfaces with mathematica. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  24. Weisstein EW (2006) Curvature. Retrieved August 2006 at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html. Mathworld–a Web resource

  25. Campbell MJ, Gardner MJ (1988) Calculating confidence intervals for some nonparametric analyses. BMJ 296:1454–1456

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stergiou N (2004) Innovative analyses of human movement. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skill: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60:39–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. DeUgarte DA, Etzioni DA, Gracia C, Atkinson JB (2003) Robotic surgery and resident training. Surg Endosc 17:960–963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kurz MJ, Stergiou N (2002) Effect of normalization and phase angle calculations on continuous relative phase. J Biomech 35:369–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Barela JA, Whitall J, Black P, Clark JE (2000) An examination of constraints affecting the intralimb coordination of hemiparetic gait. Hum Movement Sci 19:251–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith CD, Farrell TM, McNatt SS, Metreveli RE (2001) Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Am J Surg 181:547–550

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by NIH (K25HD047194), NIDRR (H133G040118), and the Nebraska Research Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intelligent Automation, Inc., Rockville, MD, USA

    Timothy N. Judkins

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    Dmitry Oleynikov

  3. HPER Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA

    Nick Stergiou

  4. Department of Environmental, Agricultural and Occupational Health Sciences, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    Nick Stergiou

Authors
  1. Timothy N. Judkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dmitry Oleynikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nick Stergiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy N. Judkins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Judkins, T.N., Oleynikov, D. & Stergiou, N. Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc 23, 590–597 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9933-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9933-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation