Design and Study of a Next-Generation Computer-Assisted System for Transoral Laser Microsurgery

Objective To present a new computer-assisted system for improved usability, intuitiveness, efficiency, and controllability in transoral laser microsurgery (TLM). Study Design Pilot technology feasibility study. Setting A dedicated room with a simulated TLM surgical setup: surgical microscope, surgical laser system, instruments, ex vivo pig larynxes, and computer-assisted system. Subjects and Methods The computer-assisted laser microsurgery (CALM) system consists of a novel motorized laser micromanipulator and a tablet- and stylus-based control interface. The system setup includes the Leica 2 surgical microscope and the DEKA HiScan Surgical laser system. The system was validated through a first-of-its-kind observational study with 57 international surgeons with varied experience in TLM. The subjects performed real surgical tasks on ex vivo pig larynxes in a simulated TLM scenario. The qualitative aspects were established with a newly devised questionnaire assessing the usability, efficiency, and suitability of the system. Results The surgeons evaluated the CALM system with an average score of 6.29 (out of 7) in ease of use and ease of learning, while an average score of 5.96 was assigned for controllability and safety. A score of 1.51 indicated reduced workload for the subjects. Of 57 subjects, 41 stated that the CALM system allows better surgical quality than the existing TLM systems. Conclusions The CALM system augments the usability, controllability, and efficiency in TLM. It enhances the ergonomics and accuracy beyond the current state of the art, potentially improving the surgical safety and quality. The system offers the intraoperative automated scanning of customized long incisions achieving uniform resections at the surgical site.

[1]  M. Remacle,et al.  Current State of Scanning Micromanipulator Applications with the Carbon Dioxide Laser , 2008, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[2]  Subhabrata Chakraborti,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Inference , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[3]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[4]  David Kerr,et al.  A methodology for design and appraisal of surgical robotic systems , 2009, Robotica.

[5]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[6]  L Reinisch,et al.  Computer‐assisted surgical techniques using the vanderbilt free electron laser , 1994, The Laryngoscope.

[7]  Isabelle Milleville-Pennel,et al.  Driving for Real or on a Fixed-Base Simulator: Is It so Different? An Explorative Study , 2015, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[8]  Deborah I. Fels,et al.  Design and Evaluation of an Authoring Tool and Notation System for Vibrotactile Composition , 2016, HCI.

[9]  D G Hanson,et al.  Comparison of the Phonation-Related Structures among Pig, Dog, White-Tailed Deer, and Human Larynges , 2001, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[10]  Andrina Granic,et al.  Web Portal Design: Employment of a Range of Assessment Methods , 2008, ISD.

[11]  Giulio Dagnino,et al.  A virtual scalpel system for computer-assisted laser microsurgery , 2011, 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[12]  M. Strome,et al.  Transoral Robot‐Assisted CO2 Laser Supraglottic Laryngectomy: Experimental and Clinical Data , 2007, The Laryngoscope.

[13]  M. Strong,et al.  Laser Surgery in the Larynx Early Clinical Experience with Continuous Co2 Laser , 1972, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[14]  Darwin G. Caldwell,et al.  Enhanced computer-assisted laser microsurgeries with a “virtual microscope” based surgical system , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[15]  A. Deal,et al.  The application of robotics to microlaryngeal laser surgery , 2015, The Laryngoscope.

[16]  M. Strong,et al.  Laser Surgery in the Larynx Early Clinical Experience with Continuous Co2 Laser , 1972, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[17]  Darwin G. Caldwell,et al.  New motorized micromanipulator for robot-assisted laser phonomicrosurgery , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[18]  I. Campbell.  Chi‐squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two‐by‐two tables with small sample recommendations , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  H. White,et al.  Quasi-Experimental Design and Methods , 2014 .

[20]  C. Finley,et al.  Novel CO2 laser robotic controller outperforms experienced laser operators in tasks of accuracy and performance repeatability , 2011, The Laryngoscope.

[21]  Marc Remacle,et al.  New computer-guided scanner for improving CO2 laser-assisted microincision , 2005, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head & Neck.

[22]  A. Darzi,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system , 2004, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[23]  Nikhil Deshpande,et al.  A novel computerized surgeon–machine interface for robot‐assisted laser phonomicrosurgery , 2014, The Laryngoscope.

[24]  Joseph Francis Giallo.  A Medical Robotic System for Laser Phonomicrosurgery , 2008 .