Dataset Information

Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing.

Method

Novice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. Each participant performed an intracorporeal suturing task, a tilted plane needle transfer task and an anastomosis needle transfer task. To complete the learning curve, all tasks were repeated up to twenty repetitions or until a time plateau was reached. Clinically relevant and comparable parameters regarding time, movements and safety were recorded. Intracorporeal suturing time and cumulative sum analysis was used to compare the learning curves and phases.

Results

Seventeen participants completed the learning curve laparoscopically and 30 robot assisted. Median first knot suturing time was 611 s (s) for laparoscopic versus 251 s for robot assisted (p < 0.001), and this was 324 s versus 165 (sixth knot, p < 0.001) and 257 s and 149 s (eleventh knot, p < 0.001) respectively on base of the found learning phases. The percentage of 'adequate surgical knots' was higher in the laparoscopic than in the robot assisted group. First knot: 71% versus 60%, sixth knot: 100% versus 83%, and eleventh knot: 100% versus 73%. When assessing the 'instrument out of view' parameter, the robot assisted group scored a median of 0% after repetition four. In the laparoscopic group, the instrument out of view increased from 3.1 to 3.9% (left) and from 3.0 to 4.1% (right) between the first and eleventh knot (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The learning curve of minimally invasive suturing shows a shorter task time curve using robotic assistance compared to the laparoscopic curve. However, laparoscopic outcomes show good end results with rapid outcome improvement.

SUBMITTER: Leijte E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7326898 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting.

Leijte Erik E de Blaauw Ivo I Van Workum Frans F Rosman Camiel C Botden Sanne S

Surgical endoscopy 20191121 8

<h4>Background</h4>Compared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing.<h4>Method</h4>Novice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. E ...[more]

PMID: 31754849

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDa Vinci robot technology is widely used in clinic,with minimally invasive surgery development. This study aims to explore the possible influence of advanced surgical robotics on the surgery learning curve by comparing the initial clinical learning curves of 2 different surgical techniques: robotic-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy (LAG).MethodsFrom September 2017 to December 2020, a chief surgeon completed a total of 108 cases of radical gastric cancer from the initial stage, including 27 cases of RAG of the Da Vinci Si robotic system (RAG group) and 81 cases of LAG (LAG group). The lymph node of gastric cancer implemented by the Japanese treatment guidelines of gastric cancer. The surgical results, postoperative complications, oncology results and learning curve were analyzed.ResultsThere was no significant difference in general data, tumor size, pathological grade and clinical stage between the 2 groups (P>0.05). The incidence of serious complications in the RAG group was lower than the LAG group (P=0.003). The intraoperative blood loss in the RAG group was lower than that in the LAG group (P=0.046). The number of lymph nodes cleaned in the RAG group was more (P=0.003), among which there was obvious advantage in lymph node cleaning in the No.9 group (P=0.038) and 11p group (P=0.015). The operation time of the RAG group was significantly longer than the LAG group (P=0.015). The analysis of learning curve found that the cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) value of the RAG group decreased from the 10th case, while the CUSUM of the LAG group decreased from the 28th case. The learning curve of the RAG group had fewer closing cases than that of the LAG group. The unique design of the surgical robot might help to improve the surgical efficiency and shorten the surgical learning curve.ConclusionsAdvanced robotics helps experienced surgeons quickly learn to master RAG skills. With the help of robotics, RAG are superior to LAG in No.9 and 11p lymph node dissection and surgical trauma reduction. RAG can clear more lymph nodes than LAG, and has better perioperative effect.

Project description:Importance:Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) has been reported to be safe and feasible. As a new technique, RPD has a learning curve similar to that of other types of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery such as laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. To our knowledge, no reports exist on the outcomes of open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and RPD after the learning curve. Objective:To analyze and evaluate the actual advantages of RPD. Design, Setting, and Participants:Between May 2010 and December 2018, 450 patients underwent RPD in the Shanghai Ruijin Hospital affiliated with Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, a high-volume pancreatic disease center. According to our previous study, an important flexion point in the learning curve is 250 cases. Data on the last 200 RPD cases were collected from January 2017 to December 2018. During that period, 634 patients underwent OPD. These patients were divided into 2 groups, and propensity score matching was used to minimize bias. The demographic data and operative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Analysis began May 2019. Exposures:Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy and OPD. Main Outcomes and Measures:The short-term operative outcomes of RPD and OPD. Results:After 1:1 matching, 187 cases of RPD and OPD were recorded. In the RPD group, 78 patients (41.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.9?(11.4) years. In the OPD group, 80 patients (42.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 60.1?(10.8) years. Robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy had advantages in operative time (mean [SD], 279.7?[76.3] minutes vs 298.2?[78.3] minutes; P?=?.02), estimated blood loss (mean [SD], 297.3?[246.8] mL vs 415.2?[497.9] mL; P?=?.002), and postoperative length of hospital stay (mean [SD], 22.4?[16.7] days vs 26.1?[16.3] days; P?=?.03). However, there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate and incidence rate of postoperative complications, such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. The incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and reoperation in the RPD group were similar to those in the OPD group, with no statistically significant difference. Conclusions and Relevance:After passing the learning curve, RPD had advantages in operative time and blood loss compared with OPD. There were no differences in postoperative complications such as postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. However, patients recovered more quickly after RPD than after OPD. A prospective randomized clinical trial is needed in the future to verify these results.

Project description:IntroductionRobot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) offers potential cure for localised prostate cancer but is associated with considerable toxicity. Potency and urinary continence are improved when the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are spared during a nerve spare (NS) RALP. There is reluctance, however, to perform NS RALP when there are concerns that the cancer extends beyond the capsule of the prostate into the NVB, as NS RALP in this instance increases the risk of a positive surgical margin (PSM). The NeuroSAFE technique involves intraoperative fresh-frozen section analysis of the posterolateral aspect of the prostate margin to assess whether cancer extends beyond the capsule. There is evidence from large observational studies that functional outcomes can be improved and PSM rates reduced when the NeuroSAFE technique is used during RALP. To date, however, there has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) to substantiate this finding. The NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study is designed to assess whether it is feasible to randomise men to NeuroSAFE RALP versus a control arm of 'standard of practice' RALP.MethodsNeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study will be a multicentre, single-blinded RCT with patients randomised 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RALP (intervention) or standard RALP (control). Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome will be assessed as the successful accrual of 50 men at three sites over 15 months. Secondary outcomes will be used to aid subsequent power calculations for the definitive full-scale RCT and will include rates of NS; PSM; biochemical recurrence; adjuvant treatments; and patient-reported functional outcomes on potency, continence and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationNeuroSAFE PROOF has ethical approval (Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978). NeuroSAFE PROOF is supported by National Institute for Healthcare Research Research for Patient Benefit funding (NIHR reference PB-PG-1216-20013). Findings will be made available through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT03317990.

Dataset Information

Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets