TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of precision and speed in laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgical task performance
AU - Zihni, Ahmed
AU - Gerull, William D.
AU - Cavallo, Jaime A.
AU - Ge, Tianjia
AU - Ray, Shuddhadeb
AU - Chiu, Jason
AU - Brunt, L. Michael
AU - Awad, Michael M.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by research grants from the Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and Intuitive Surgical, Inc (Sunnyvale, CA).
Funding Information:
A.Z. received research grant funding for unrelated studies from the National Institutes of Health.
Funding Information:
J.A.C. has received research grant funding for unrelated studies from the National Institutes of Health, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), and the American Hernia Society in collaboration with Davol Incorporated, and has served as a one-time consultant for Guidepoint Global Incorporated.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - Background Robotic platforms have the potential advantage of providing additional dexterity and precision to surgeons while performing complex laparoscopic tasks, especially for those in training. Few quantitative evaluations of surgical task performance comparing laparoscopic and robotic platforms among surgeons of varying experience levels have been done. We compared measures of quality and efficiency of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery task performance on these platforms in novices and experienced laparoscopic and robotic surgeons. Methods Fourteen novices, 12 expert laparoscopic surgeons (>100 laparoscopic procedures performed, no robotics experience), and five expert robotic surgeons (>25 robotic procedures performed) performed three Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery tasks on both laparoscopic and robotic platforms: peg transfer (PT), pattern cutting (PC), and intracorporeal suturing. All tasks were repeated three times by each subject on each platform in a randomized order. Mean completion times and mean errors per trial (EPT) were calculated for each task on both platforms. Results were compared using Student's t-test (P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results Among novices, greater errors were noted during laparoscopic PC (Lap 2.21 versus Robot 0.88 EPT, P < 0.001). Among expert laparoscopists, greater errors were noted during laparoscopic PT compared with robotic (PT: Lap 0.14 versus Robot 0.00 EPT, P = 0.04). Among expert robotic surgeons, greater errors were noted during laparoscopic PC compared with robotic (Lap 0.80 versus Robot 0.13 EPT, P = 0.02). Among expert laparoscopists, task performance was slower on the robotic platform compared with laparoscopy. In comparisons of expert laparoscopists performing tasks on the laparoscopic platform and expert robotic surgeons performing tasks on the robotic platform, expert robotic surgeons demonstrated fewer errors during the PC task (P = 0.009). Conclusions Robotic assistance provided a reduction in errors at all experience levels for some laparoscopic tasks, but no benefit in the speed of task performance. Robotic assistance may provide some benefit in precision of surgical task performance.
AB - Background Robotic platforms have the potential advantage of providing additional dexterity and precision to surgeons while performing complex laparoscopic tasks, especially for those in training. Few quantitative evaluations of surgical task performance comparing laparoscopic and robotic platforms among surgeons of varying experience levels have been done. We compared measures of quality and efficiency of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery task performance on these platforms in novices and experienced laparoscopic and robotic surgeons. Methods Fourteen novices, 12 expert laparoscopic surgeons (>100 laparoscopic procedures performed, no robotics experience), and five expert robotic surgeons (>25 robotic procedures performed) performed three Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery tasks on both laparoscopic and robotic platforms: peg transfer (PT), pattern cutting (PC), and intracorporeal suturing. All tasks were repeated three times by each subject on each platform in a randomized order. Mean completion times and mean errors per trial (EPT) were calculated for each task on both platforms. Results were compared using Student's t-test (P < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Results Among novices, greater errors were noted during laparoscopic PC (Lap 2.21 versus Robot 0.88 EPT, P < 0.001). Among expert laparoscopists, greater errors were noted during laparoscopic PT compared with robotic (PT: Lap 0.14 versus Robot 0.00 EPT, P = 0.04). Among expert robotic surgeons, greater errors were noted during laparoscopic PC compared with robotic (Lap 0.80 versus Robot 0.13 EPT, P = 0.02). Among expert laparoscopists, task performance was slower on the robotic platform compared with laparoscopy. In comparisons of expert laparoscopists performing tasks on the laparoscopic platform and expert robotic surgeons performing tasks on the robotic platform, expert robotic surgeons demonstrated fewer errors during the PC task (P = 0.009). Conclusions Robotic assistance provided a reduction in errors at all experience levels for some laparoscopic tasks, but no benefit in the speed of task performance. Robotic assistance may provide some benefit in precision of surgical task performance.
KW - Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery
KW - Laparoscopic surgery
KW - Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery
KW - Surgical task performance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033382318&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jss.2017.07.037
DO - 10.1016/j.jss.2017.07.037
M3 - Article
C2 - 29433882
AN - SCOPUS:85033382318
SN - 0022-4804
VL - 223
SP - 29
EP - 33
JO - Journal of Surgical Research
JF - Journal of Surgical Research
ER -