Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to quantify the extent of dexterity enhancement in robotic surgery as compared to laparoscopic surgery.MethodsTen surgeons with varying laparoscopic suturing experience were asked to place three sutures on a suture pad. The sutures were placed laparoscopically, robotically with 2-D vision and robotically with 3-D vision. The da Vinci system’s Application Programming Interface (API) was used for positional data. A validated motion analysis system was used for data retrieval for the laparoscopic task. Custom software was developed for data analysis.ResultsCompared to laparoscopic suturing, when the task was undertaken robotically with 2-D vision there was a 20% reduction in the time taken but this was not significant (p = 0.07). There was a 55% reduction in the path traveled by the right hand (p = 0.01) and a 45% reduction in the path traveled by the left hand (p = 0.008). When the task was undertaken robotically with 3-D vision, there was a 40% reduction in the time taken (p = 0.01). There was a 70% reduction in the path traveled by right hand (p = 0.008) and a 55% reduction by the left hand (p = 0.08).ConclusionsThe presence of “wristed” instrumentation, tremor abolition, and motion scaling enhance dexterity by nearly 50% as compared to laparoscopic surgery. 3-D vision enhances dexterity by a further 10–15%. In addition, the presence of 3-D vision results in a 93% reduction in skills-based errors.

[1]  W. Chapman,et al.  Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy in a single center. , 1993, American journal of surgery.

[2]  D. Jones,et al.  The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance. , 1996, Surgical laparoscopy & endoscopy.

[3]  Sankey V. Williams,et al.  Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis. , 1996, Annals of surgery.

[4]  A. Li,et al.  Comparison of two-dimensional vs three-dimensional camera systems in laparoscopic surgery , 1997, Surgical Endoscopy.

[5]  Ramon Berguer,et al.  Laparoscopic instruments cause increased forearm fatigue: A subjective and objective comparison of open and laparoscopic techniques , 1997 .

[6]  U. Voges,et al.  Robotics and allied technologies in endoscopic surgery. , 1998, Surgical technology international.

[7]  M. Mueller,et al.  Three-dimensional laparoscopy , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[8]  Rigid videosigmoidoscopy vs conventional sigmoidoscopy , 1999, Surgical Endoscopy.

[9]  M. Mueller,et al.  Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dimensional laparoscopy. , 1999, Surgical endoscopy.

[10]  R Berguer,et al.  Surgery and ergonomics. , 1999, Archives of surgery.

[11]  Alfred Cuschieri,et al.  Influence of Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional Imaging on Endoscopic Bowel Suturing , 2000, World Journal of Surgery.

[12]  B. Davies.  A review of robotics in surgery , 2000, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[13]  L. Nifong,et al.  The Evolution of and Early Experience With Robot-Assisted Mitral Valve Surgery , 2001, Current surgery.

[14]  R. Satava,et al.  Virtual reality as a metric for the assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[15]  Benjamin R. Lee,et al.  Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? , 2002, Urology.

[16]  James A. Young,et al.  Early Experience with Telemanipulative Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Using da Vinci , 2002, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[17]  Fernando Bello,et al.  ROVIMAS: a software package for assessing surgical skills using the da Vinci telemanipulator system , 2003, 4th International IEEE EMBS Special Topic Conference on Information Technology Applications in Biomedicine, 2003..