Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Intracorporeal 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.

Methods

Medical 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.

Results

Compared 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).

Conclusions

Compared 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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Southern Surgeons Club (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078

    Google Scholar 

  2. Moore MJ, Bennett CL (1995) The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The Southern Surgeons Club. Am J Surg 170:55–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR, Scott DJ (2005) Robotic laparoscopic fundoplication. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 8:71–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Costi R, Himpens J, Bruyns J, Cadiere GB (2003) Robotic fundoplication: from theoretic advantages to real problems. J Am Coll Surg 197:500–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP (1998) An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 30:617–620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced vs. standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 6:11–15; discussion 15–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Rubino F, Smith M, Vix M, Simone M et al (2002) Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications. Ann Surg 235:487–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 16:1389–1402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Peabody J, Menon M (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 18:63–66; discussion 66–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Morino M, Pellegrino L, Giaccone C, Garrone C, Rebecchi F (2006) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Br J Surg 93:553–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 1:549–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mohr CJ, Nadzam GS, Curet MJ (2005) Totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Arch Surg 140:779–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 16:690–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 201:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 139–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Markley S, Sierra R, Heniford BT, Scott DJ (2007) Closing the gap in operative performance between novices and experts: does harder mean better for laparoscopic simulator training? J Am Coll Surg 205:307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Young G, Zavelina L, Hooper V (2008) Assessment of workload using NASA Task Load Index in perianesthesia nursing. J Perianesth Nurs 23:102–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W (2007) Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 51:45–55; discussion 56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rozet F, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2006) Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 24:171–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. El-Hakim A, Leung RA, Tewari A (2006) Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 6:11–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heemskerk J, van Gemert WG, de Vries J, Greve J, Bouvy ND (2007) Learning curves of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study evaluating skill acquisition of robot-assisted laparoscopic tasks compared with conventional laparoscopic tasks in inexperienced users. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:171–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gofrit ON, Mikahail AA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL (2008) Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology 71:404–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnston WK III, Hollenbeck BK, Wolf JS Jr (2005) Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Endourol 19:377–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD, Philipps C, Lewis C, De Vera RM et al (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182:720–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Satava RM (2004) Future trends in the design and application of surgical robots. Semin Laparosc Surg 11:129–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Carolinas Simulation Center, 1000 Blythe Blvd, MEB 601, Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Department of Surgery, Tulane University SOM, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Fikre Wang, James R. Korndorffer Jr. & J. Bruce Dunne

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA

    Daniel J. Scott

Authors
  1. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fikre Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James R. Korndorffer Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Bruce Dunne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel J. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Stefanidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stefanidis, D., Wang, F., Korndorffer, J.R. et al. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24, 377–382 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0578-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0578-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation