Improving vision for surgeons during laparoscopy: the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS).
Animal model
Distributed laparoscopy
Enhanced visualisation
Phase 0 medical device evaluation
Trocar prototype
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
09
10
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
pubmed:
3
3
2021
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
2
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
For many abdominal surgical interventions, laparotomy has gradually been replaced by laparoscopy, with numerous benefits for the patient in terms of post-operative recovery. However, during laparoscopy, the endoscope only provides a single viewpoint to the surgeon, leaving numerous blind spots and opening the way to peri-operative adverse events. Alternative camera systems have been proposed, but many lack the requisite resolution/robustness for use during surgery or cannot provide real-time images. Here, we present the added value of the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS) which overcomes these limitations and provides a broad view of the surgical field in addition to the usual high-resolution endoscope. Experienced laparoscopy surgeons performed several typical procedure steps on a live pig model. The time-to-completion for surgical exercises performed by conventional endoscopy and ELViS-assisted surgery was measured. A debriefing interview following each operating session was conducted by an ergonomist, and a System Usability Scale (SUS) score was determined. Proof of concept of ELVIS was achieved in an animal model with seven expert surgeons without peroperative adverse events related to the surgical device. No differences were found in time-to-completion. Mean SUS score was 74.7, classifying the usability of the ELViS as "good". During the debriefing interview, surgeons highlighted several situations where the ELViS provided a real advantage (such as during instrument insertion, exploration of the abdominal cavity or for orientation during close work) and also suggested avenues for improvement of the system. This first test of the ELViS prototype on a live animal model demonstrated its usability and provided promising and useful feedback for further development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
For many abdominal surgical interventions, laparotomy has gradually been replaced by laparoscopy, with numerous benefits for the patient in terms of post-operative recovery. However, during laparoscopy, the endoscope only provides a single viewpoint to the surgeon, leaving numerous blind spots and opening the way to peri-operative adverse events. Alternative camera systems have been proposed, but many lack the requisite resolution/robustness for use during surgery or cannot provide real-time images. Here, we present the added value of the Enhanced Laparoscopic Vision System (ELViS) which overcomes these limitations and provides a broad view of the surgical field in addition to the usual high-resolution endoscope.
METHODS
Experienced laparoscopy surgeons performed several typical procedure steps on a live pig model. The time-to-completion for surgical exercises performed by conventional endoscopy and ELViS-assisted surgery was measured. A debriefing interview following each operating session was conducted by an ergonomist, and a System Usability Scale (SUS) score was determined.
RESULTS
Proof of concept of ELVIS was achieved in an animal model with seven expert surgeons without peroperative adverse events related to the surgical device. No differences were found in time-to-completion. Mean SUS score was 74.7, classifying the usability of the ELViS as "good". During the debriefing interview, surgeons highlighted several situations where the ELViS provided a real advantage (such as during instrument insertion, exploration of the abdominal cavity or for orientation during close work) and also suggested avenues for improvement of the system.
CONCLUSIONS
This first test of the ELViS prototype on a live animal model demonstrated its usability and provided promising and useful feedback for further development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33650002
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08369-2
pii: 10.1007/s00464-021-08369-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2403-2415Références
Tanis PJ, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA (2014) Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 28:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2013.11.017
doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2013.11.017
pubmed: 24485253
van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
Anderson SA, Beierle EA, Chen MK (2014) Role of laparoscopy in the prevention and in the treatment of adhesions. Semin Pediatr Surg 23:353–356. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.007
doi: 10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2014.06.007
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MHGM, de Lange-de Klerk ESM, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
Ratti F, Fiorentini G, Cipriani F, Catena M, Paganelli M, Aldrighetti L (2018) Laparoscopic vs open surgery for colorectal liver metastases. JAMA Surg 153:1028. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2107
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2107
pubmed: 30027220
pmcid: 6583700
McMahon AJ, Fullarton G, Baxter JN, O’Dwyer PJ (1995) Bile duct injury and bile leakage in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 82:307–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800820308
doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800820308
pubmed: 7795992
Pesce A, Palmucci S, La Greca G, Puleo S (2019) Iatrogenic bile duct injury: impact and management challenges. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 12:121–128. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEG.S169492
doi: 10.2147/CEG.S169492
pubmed: 30881079
pmcid: 6408920
Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Srinivasa S, Bissett IP, Hill AG (2011) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with a higher intraoperative complication rate than open surgery. Ann Surg 253:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318204a8b4
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318204a8b4
pubmed: 21294286
Cardin J-L, Johanet H (2011) Intraoperative events and their outcome: data from 4007 laparoscopic interventions by the French “Club Coelio”. J Visc Surg 148:e299–e310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2011.07.008
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2011.07.008
pubmed: 21871852
On behalf of the EAES committees, Francis NK, Curtis NJ, Conti JA, Foster JD, Bonjer HJ, Hanna GB (2018) EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 32:3822–3829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6108-1
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6108-1
Curtis NJ, Dennison G, Brown CSB, Hewett PJ, Hanna GB, Stevenson ARL, Francis NK (2019) Clinical evaluation of intraoperative near misses in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003452
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003452
Cahais J, Schwarz L, Bridoux V, Huet E, Tuech J-J (2017) Is the image “right” for everyone? Introduction to the parallax effect in laparoscopic surgery. J Visc Surg 154:11–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.06.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.06.007
pubmed: 27378511
Wentink M, Breedveld P, Meijer DW, Stassen HG (2000) Endoscopic camera rotation: a conceptual solution to improve hand-eye coordination in minimally-invasive surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 9:125–131. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645700009063059
doi: 10.3109/13645700009063059
Conrad J, Shah AH, Divino CM, Schluender S, Gurland B, Shlasko E, Szold A (2006) The role of mental rotation and memory scanning on the performance of laparoscopic skills: a study on the effect of camera rotational angle. Surg Endosc 20:504–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0363-7
doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0363-7
pubmed: 16437266
Trilling B, Vijayan S, Goupil C, Kedisseh E, Letouzey A, Barraud PA, Faucheron JL, Fiard G, Voros S (2020) Enhanced laparoscopic vision improves detection of intraoperative adverse events during laparoscopy. IRBM. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irbm.2020.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.irbm.2020.12.001
Tamadazte B, Agustinos A, Cinquin P, Fiard G, Voros S (2015) Multi-view vision system for laparoscopy surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1064-2
doi: 10.1007/s11548-014-1064-2
pubmed: 24824942
Tamadazte B, Fiard G, Long J-A, Cinquin P, Voros S (2013) Enhanced vision system for laparoscopic surgery. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013:5702–5705. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610845
doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610845
Voros S, Moreau-Gaudry A, Tamadazte B, Custillon G, Heus R, Montmasson M-P, Giroud F, Gaiffe O, Pieralli C, Fiard G, Long J-A, Descotes J-L, Vidal C, Nguyen-Dinh A, Cinquin P (2013) Devices and systems targeted towards augmented robotic radical prostatectomy. IRBM 34:139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irbm.2013.01.014
doi: 10.1016/j.irbm.2013.01.014
Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8:e1000412
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
Barrie J, Russell L, Hood AJ, Jayne DG, Neville A, Culmer PR (2018) An in vivo analysis of safe laparoscopic grasping thresholds for colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 32:4244–4250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6172-6
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6172-6
pubmed: 29602989
pmcid: 6132882
Lallemand C, Gronier G (2016) Méthodes de design UX: 30 méthodes fondamentales pour concevoir et évaluer les systèmes interactifs. Eyrolles, Paris
Brooke J (1996) SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 189:4–7
Bangor A (2009) Determining what individual SUS Scores Mean: adding an Adjective Rating Scale. J Usability Stud 4:10
Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. Methuen, London
Hirst A, Philippou Y, Blazeby J, Campbell B, Campbell M, Feinberg J, Rovers M, Blencowe N, Pennell C, Quinn T, Rogers W, Cook J, Kolias AG, Agha R, Dahm P, Sedrakyan A, McCulloch P (2019) No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg 269:211–220. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002794
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002794
pubmed: 29697448
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet 374:1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
Suzuki N, Hattori A (2013) Development of new augmented reality function using intraperitoneal multi-view camera. In: Linte CA, Chen ECS, Berger M-O, Moore JT, Holmes DR (eds) Augmented environments for computer-assisted interventions. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 67–76
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38085-3_8
Silvestri M, Ranzani T, Argiolas A, Vatteroni M, Menciassi A (2013) A multi-point of view 3D camera system for minimally invasive surgery. Sens Actuators A 202:204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2012.12.015
doi: 10.1016/j.sna.2012.12.015
Castro CA, Alqassis A, Smith S, Ketterl T, Sun Yu, Ross S, Rosemurgy A, Savage PP, Gitlin RD (2013) A wireless robot for networked laparoscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60:930–936. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2012.2232926
doi: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2232926
pubmed: 23232365
Han WK, Tan YK, Olweny EO, Yin G, Liu Z-W, Faddegon S, Scott DJ, Cadeddu JA (2013) Comparison between magnetic anchoring and guidance system camera-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery nephrectomy and conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgery nephrectomy in a porcine model: focus on ergonomics and workload profiles. J Endourol 27:490–496. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0484
doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0484
pubmed: 23067039
Naya Y, Nakamura K, Araki K, Kawamura K, Kamijima S, Imamoto T, Nihei N, Suzuki H, Ichikawa T, Igarashi T (2009) Usefulness of panoramic views for novice surgeons doing retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: panoramic views for novice surgeons. Int J Urol 16:177–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02215.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02215.x
pubmed: 19054162
Kim J-J, Watras A, Liu H, Zeng Z, Greenberg J, Heise C, Hu Y, Jiang H (2018) Large-field-of-view visualization utilizing multiple miniaturized cameras for laparoscopic surgery. Micromachines 9:431. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi9090431
doi: 10.3390/mi9090431
pmcid: 6187494
Sumi Y, Egi H, Hattori M, Suzuki T, Tokunaga M, Adachi T, Sawada H, Mukai S, Kurita Y, Ohdan H (2019) A prospective study of the safety and usefulness of a new miniature wide-angle camera: the “BirdView camera system.” Surg Endosc 33:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6293-y
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6293-y
pubmed: 29967996
Rivas-Blanco I, Sánchez-de-Badajoz E, García-Morales I, Lage-Sánchez JM, Sánchez-Gallegos P, Pérez-del-Pulgar CJ, Muñoz VF (2017) Global vision system in laparoscopy. Actas Urol Esp (English Edition) 41:274–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2017.03.007
doi: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2017.03.007
Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondré K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190:107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004
pubmed: 15972181
Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278
pubmed: 9052454
Huber T, Paschold M, Schneble F, Poplawski A, Huettl F, Watzka F, Lang H, Kneist W (2018) Structured assessment of laparoscopic camera navigation skills: the SALAS score. Surg Endosc 32:4980–4984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6260-7
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6260-7
pubmed: 29869085
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640080030
doi: 10.1007/s004640080030
pubmed: 11727101
Law KE, Lowndes BR, Kelley SR, Blocker RC, Larson DW, Hallbeck MS, Nelson H (2018) NASA-Task Load Index differentiates surgical approach: opportunities for improvement in colon and rectal surgery. Ann Surg 271:906–912. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003173
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003173
Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183
Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, Butner SE, Smith MK (2001) Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 413:379–380. https://doi.org/10.1038/35096636
doi: 10.1038/35096636
pubmed: 11574874
Sotelo R, Nunez Bragayrac LA, Machuca V, Garza Cortes R, Azhar RA (2015) Avoiding and managing vascular injury during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Ther Adv Urol 7:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287214553967
doi: 10.1177/1756287214553967
pubmed: 25642293
pmcid: 4294799
Lee Z, Kaplan J, Giusto L, Eun D (2016) Prevention of iatrogenic ureteral injuries during robotic gynecologic surgery: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:566–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.150
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.150
pubmed: 26519785
Picerno T, Sloan NL, Escobar P, Ramirez PT (2017) Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216:10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.040
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.040
pubmed: 27640938