Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study.
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
08
01
2023
accepted:
25
03
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
19
4
2023
entrez:
18
04
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Initial learning curves are potentially shorter in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) than in conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). There is little evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, there is limited evidence how skills from LS transfer to RAS. A randomized controlled, assessor blinded crossover study to compare how RAS naïve surgeons (n = 40) performed linear-stapled side-to-side bowel anastomoses in an in vivo porcine model with LS and RAS. Technique was rated using the validated anastomosis objective structured assessment of skills (A-OSATS) score and the conventional OSATS score. Skill transfer from LS to RAS was measured by comparing the RAS performance of LS novices and LS experienced surgeons. Mental and physical workload was measured with the NASA-task load index (NASA-Tlx) and the Borg-scale. In the overall cohort, there were no differences between RAS and LS for surgical performance (A-OSATS, time, OSATS). Surgeons that were naïve in both LS and RAS had significantly higher A-OSATS scores in RAS (Mean (Standard deviation (SD)): LS: 48.0 ± 12.1; RAS: 52.0 ± 7.5); p = 0.044) mainly deriving from better bowel positioning (LS: 8.7 ± 1.4; RAS: 9.3 ± 1.0; p = 0.045) and closure of enterotomy (LS: 12.8 ± 5.5; RAS: 15.6 ± 4.7; p = 0.010). There was no statistically significant difference in how LS novices and LS experienced surgeons performed in RAS [Mean (SD): novices: 48.9 ± 9.0; experienced surgeons: 55.9 ± 11.0; p = 0.540]. Mental and physical demand was significantly higher after LS. The initial performance was improved for RAS versus LS for linear stapled bowel anastomosis, whereas workload was higher for LS. There was limited transfer of skills from LS to RAS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Initial learning curves are potentially shorter in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) than in conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). There is little evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, there is limited evidence how skills from LS transfer to RAS.
METHODS
A randomized controlled, assessor blinded crossover study to compare how RAS naïve surgeons (n = 40) performed linear-stapled side-to-side bowel anastomoses in an in vivo porcine model with LS and RAS. Technique was rated using the validated anastomosis objective structured assessment of skills (A-OSATS) score and the conventional OSATS score. Skill transfer from LS to RAS was measured by comparing the RAS performance of LS novices and LS experienced surgeons. Mental and physical workload was measured with the NASA-task load index (NASA-Tlx) and the Borg-scale.
OUTCOMES
In the overall cohort, there were no differences between RAS and LS for surgical performance (A-OSATS, time, OSATS). Surgeons that were naïve in both LS and RAS had significantly higher A-OSATS scores in RAS (Mean (Standard deviation (SD)): LS: 48.0 ± 12.1; RAS: 52.0 ± 7.5); p = 0.044) mainly deriving from better bowel positioning (LS: 8.7 ± 1.4; RAS: 9.3 ± 1.0; p = 0.045) and closure of enterotomy (LS: 12.8 ± 5.5; RAS: 15.6 ± 4.7; p = 0.010). There was no statistically significant difference in how LS novices and LS experienced surgeons performed in RAS [Mean (SD): novices: 48.9 ± 9.0; experienced surgeons: 55.9 ± 11.0; p = 0.540]. Mental and physical demand was significantly higher after LS.
CONCLUSION
The initial performance was improved for RAS versus LS for linear stapled bowel anastomosis, whereas workload was higher for LS. There was limited transfer of skills from LS to RAS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37072638
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7
pii: 10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7
pmc: PMC10338398
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5894-5901Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
van Hilst J, de Graaf N, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG (2021) The landmark series: minimally invasive pancreatic resection. Ann Surg Oncol 28(3):1447–1456
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09335-3
pubmed: 33341916
Kazi M, Kumar NAN, Rohila J et al (2021) Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenterations for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes. BJS Open. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab074
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab074
pubmed: 34518872
pmcid: 8438253
Haney CM, Studier-Fischer A, Probst P et al (2021) A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 23(10):1467–1481
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.03.006
pubmed: 33820689
Kowalewski KF, Seifert L, Ali S et al (2021) Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 35(1):81–95
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07361-1
pubmed: 32025924
Nickel F, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF et al (2020) Laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 271(1):54–66
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003309
pubmed: 30973388
Stewart CL, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom KA et al (2019) Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc 33(8):2591–2601
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6554-9
pubmed: 30357525
Willuth E, Hardon SF, Lang F et al (2022) Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study. Surg Endosc 36(2):1064–1079
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08373-6
pubmed: 33638104
Kowalewski KF, Schmidt MW, Proctor T et al (2018) Skills in minimally invasive and open surgery show limited transferability to robotic surgery: results from a prospective study. Surg Endosc 32(4):1656–1667
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6109-0
pubmed: 29435749
Schmidt MW, Koppinger KF, Fan C et al (2021) Virtual reality simulation in robot-assisted surgery: meta-analysis of skill transfer and predictability of skill. BJS Open. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa066
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa066
pubmed: 33864069
pmcid: 8052560
Dwan K, Li T, Altman DG, Elbourne D (2019) CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials. BMJ 366:l4378
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4378
pubmed: 31366597
pmcid: 6667942
Wehrtmann FS, de la Garza JR, Kowalewski KF et al (2020) Learning curves of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy in bariatric surgery: a systematic review and introduction of a standardization. Obes Surg 30(2):640–656
doi: 10.1007/s11695-019-04230-7
pubmed: 31664653
Schmidt MW, Haney CM, Kowalewski KF et al (2021) Development and validity evidence of an objective structured assessment of technical skills score for minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn intestinal anastomoses: the A-OSATS score. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08806-2
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08806-2
pubmed: 34782961
pmcid: 9085661
Noyes JM, Bruneau DP (2007) A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure. Ergonomics 50(4):514–519
doi: 10.1080/00140130701235232
pubmed: 17575712
Borg E, Kaijser L (2006) A comparison between three rating scales for perceived exertion and two different work tests. Scand J Med Sci Sports 16(1):57–69
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00448.x
pubmed: 16430682
Dias RD, Ngo-Howard MC, Boskovski MT, Zenati MA, Yule SJ (2018) Systematic review of measurement tools to assess surgeons’ intraoperative cognitive workload. Br J Surg 105(5):491–501
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10795
pubmed: 29465749
pmcid: 5878696
Team RC (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing
Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I et al (2005) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of an Italian national survey on 56 591 cholecystectomies. Arch Surg 140(10):986–992
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.140.10.986
pubmed: 16230550
Richardson MC, Bell G, Fullarton GM (1996) Incidence and nature of bile duct injuries following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an audit of 5913 cases. West of Scotland Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Audit Group. Br J Surg 83(10):1356–1360
doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800831009
pubmed: 8944450
Adamsen S, Hansen OH, Funch-Jensen P, Schulze S, Stage JG, Wara P (1997) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective nationwide series. J Am Coll Surg 184(6):571–578
pubmed: 9179112
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M et al (2009) The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 10(5):475–480
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70079-8
pubmed: 19342300
pmcid: 2777762
Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13(5):466–468
doi: 10.1007/PL00009635
pubmed: 10227943
Kramp KH, van Det MJ, Totte ER, Hoff C, Pierie JP (2014) Ergonomic assessment of the French and American position for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the MIS Suite. Surg Endosc 28(5):1571–1578
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3353-1
pubmed: 24380985
van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, van Veelen MA, Pierie JP (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in the minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22(11):2421–2427
doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0042-6
pubmed: 18622549