Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic skill acquisition: implications for training

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Despite the growing interest in surgical robotics, very little study has been done regarding the acquisition of the skills needed to perform robotic surgery safely. The purpose of this study was to determine whether skills are transferred between conventional laparoscopy and robotically assisted surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Intracorporeal knot tying was used for evaluating laparoscopic skills for time and error performance. Twenty medical students without any laparoscopic experience were randomized into two groups. Group A initially performed knot tying with conventional laparoscopic instruments, were trained with the daVinci Robotic System, and then performed knot tying with conventional laparoscopy. Group B performed knot tying with robotics, trained with standard laparoscopy, and completed post-training knot tying with robotics. Pretraining and post-training tasks were videotaped and analyzed using a detailed scoring system by one independent referee, who was blinded to the subjects' experience. RESULTS: Pre-training knot tying was faster with robotics (4.4 v 9.9 minutes; P < 0.001). The mean composite scores were 27.4 for group A and 57.4 for group B (P = 0.09), and the error scores were 57.1 and 42.1 (P = 0.29), respectively. Post-training time for knot completion decreased to 6.7 minutes and 3.4 minutes for groups A and B, respectively. Composite scores increased significantly, from 27.4 to 66.1 for group A and 57.4 to 81.8 for group B. Error scores decreased to 32.9 for group A (P = 0.1) and 16.2 in group B (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be reciprocal transfer of skills between conventional laparoscopy and robotically assisted surgery. However, this transference is incomplete. Our results suggest that training with either technique or conventional laparoscopy is superior to training with robotics alone.     

Current status of robotics in urologic laparoscopy

Urology has continuously embraced novel technologies like laparoscopy that reduce patient morbidity yet maintain an excellent standard of care. Because of limitations on maneuverability, operative vision, manual dexterity, and tactile sense, laparoscopy can be more difficult to perform than corresponding tasks in open surgery. To potentially increase clinical applicability of laparoscopy, robots that enhance operative performance have recently been introduced for a variety of laparoscopic procedures such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, pyeloplasty, and even laparoscopic cystectomy and neobladder construction. While these robots have generated excitement and many robotic applications have been described, the benefit of the advanced technology in expanded series of patients remains largely unknown. In addition, the ability of telerobotics to be used by surgeons inexperienced in conventional laparoscopy is also poorly understood. This review compares current features of available robots, advantages and limitations of robots, the emerging clinical applications, and the future potential of robotics in urology.     

Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills

PURPOSE: We investigated the impact of robotics on surgical skills by comparing traditional laparoscopy with the da Vinci Surgical System in the performance of various laparoscopic training drills. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one surgeons performed eight timed drills of increasing difficulty with a laparoscopic trainer and the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Sunnyvale, CA). The mean time to drill completion, drill time variance, and statistical analysis were performed. Surgeons were also questioned about their perception of the robotic technology following completion of the drill series. RESULTS: The mean time required to complete the first drill was 69 seconds with laparoscopy and 57 seconds with the robotic system. The mean times for drill two were 67 seconds with laparoscopy and 44 seconds with robotics; for drill three, the times were 88 seconds for laparoscopy and 61 seconds for robotics, and for drill four, 186 seconds with laparoscopy and 71 seconds with robotics. Only the first drill failed to show a statistically significant difference between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic system allowed surgeons to complete drills faster than traditional laparoscopy. Novice laparoscopic surgeons performed three of the four drills faster robotically than did expert laparoscopic surgeons. These findings may indicate that the attributes of the robotic system level the playing field between surgeons of different skill levels. The next generation of surgeons must focus on this evolving technology and its application in the operating room of the future.     

Robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review

BackgroundObesity is a nationwide epidemic, and the only evidence-based, durable treatment of this disease is bariatric surgery. This field has evolved drastically during the past decade. One of the latest advances has been the increased use of robotics within this field. The goal of our study was to perform a systematic review of the recent data to determine the safety and efficacy of robotic bariatric surgery. The setting was the University Hospitals Case Medical Center (Cleveland, OH).MethodsA PubMed search was performed for robotic bariatric surgery from 2005 to 2011. The inclusion criteria were English language, original research, human, and bariatric surgical procedures. Perioperative data were then collected from each study and recorded.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included in our review. The results of our systematic review showed that bariatric surgery, when performed with the use of robotics, had similar or lower complication rates compared with traditional laparoscopy. Two studies showed shorter operative times using the robot for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but 4 studies showed longer operative times in the robotic arm. In addition, the learning curve appears to be shorter when robotic gastric bypass is compared with the traditional laparoscopic approach. Most investigators agreed that robotic laparoscopic surgery provides superior imaging and freedom of movement compared with traditional laparoscopy.ConclusionThe application of robotics appears to be a safe option within the realm of bariatric surgery. Prospective randomized trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic outcomes are needed to further define the role of robotics within the field of bariatric surgery. Longer follow-up times would also help elucidate any long-term outcomes differences with the use of robotics versus traditional laparoscopy.     

Robotics in gynecology

The surgical robot has the potential to enable a laparoscopic approach to procedures that are presently performed by laparotomy due to the technical difficulties intrinsic to laparoscopy. The use of the current robot prototypes are not cost-effective for gynecologic procedures that are already performed by laparoscopy. The rapid evolution of robotics will likely allow for more widespread application in all surgical specialties in the future.     

Robotic bariatric surgery: A general review of the current status

Background

While conventional laparoscopy is the gold standard for almost all bariatric procedures, robotic assistance holds promise for facilitating complex surgeries and improving clinical outcomes. Since the report of the first robotic‐assisted bariatric procedure in 1999, numerous publications, including those reporting comparative trials and meta‐analyses across bariatric procedures with a focus on robotic assistance, can be found.

Purpose

This article reviews the current literature and portrays the perspectives of robotic bariatric surgery.

Conclusions

While there are substantial reports on robotic bariatric surgery currently in publication, most studies suffer from low levels of evidence. As such, although robotics technology is without a doubt superior to conventional laparoscopy, the precise role of robotics in bariatric surgery is not yet clear.     

The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been used in a wide variety of surgical fields; however, the financial costs involved are high and convincing proof of superiority in terms of quality of life, cost effectiveness and survival is often lacking. Possibly, there might be small benefits for the patient or for the surgeon’s health that might warrant the use of robotics in limited fields of surgery.

Methods

We performed a critical appraisal of the literature, searching for scientific evidence supporting the use of robotics in daily laparoscopic surgery.

Results

Convincing evidence supporting the use of robotics is lacking.

Conclusion

In an era of worldwide economic crisis, it is about time to start a critical discussion as to whether we should drastically limit, or even abandon, the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery and focus on more cost-effective strategies of healthcare improvement. We suggest the use of robotics should be limited to well-powered, randomized clinical trials in a limited field of research.     

Status of robotic assistance—a less traumatic and more accurate minimally invasive surgery?

Purpose  

Robotic assistance is considered one innovation within abdominal surgery over the past decade that has the potential to compensate for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopy, such as limited degree of freedom, 2D vision, fulcrum, and pivoting effect. Robotic systems provide corresponding solutions as 3D view, intuitive motion and enable additional degrees of freedom. This review provides an overview of the history of medical robotics, experimental studies, clinical state-of-the-art and economic impact.     

Robotic surgery versus laparoscopy; a comparison between two robotic systems and laparoscopy

Laparoscopy has found a role in standard urologic practice, and with training programs continuing to increase emphasis on its use, the division between skill sets of established non-laparoscopic urologic practitioners and urology trainees continues to widen. At the other end of the spectrum, as technology progresses apace, advanced laparoscopists continue to question the role of surgical robotics in urologic practice, citing a lack of significant advantage to this modality over conventional laparoscopy. We seek to compare two robotic systems (Zeus and DaVinci) versus conventional laparoscopy in surgical training modules in the drylab environment in the context of varying levels of surgical expertise. A total of 12 volunteers were recruited to the study: four staff, four postgraduate trainees, and four medical student interns. Each volunteer performed repeated time trials of standardized tasks consisting of suturing and knot tying using each of the three platforms: DaVinci, Zeus and conventional laparoscopy. Task times and numbers of errors were recorded for each task. Following each platform trial, a standardized subjective ten-point Likert score questionnaire was distributed to the volunteer regarding various operating parameters experienced including: visualization, fluidity, efficacy, precision, dexterity, tremor, tactile feedback, and coordination. Task translation from laparoscopy to Zeus robotics appeared to be difficult as both suture times and knot-tying times increased in pairwise comparisons across skill levels.     

Comparison of Single-Port Laparoscopy,Standard Laparoscopy,and Robotic Surgery in Patients with Endometrial Cancer

Background  

The aim of this study was to evaluate single-port laparoscopy (SPL) for the surgical treatment of presumed early-stage endometrial cancer and to compare surgical outcomes to laparoscopy and robotics.     

Surgical treatment of ureteropyelic junction stenosis using robotic-assisted laparoscopy

Since the introduction of mini-invasive surgery approximately thirty years ago, Laparoscopic surgery has significantly evolved both in terms of its extended field of application and of the tools used which were diversified and improved. More recently, the development of robotic-assisted laparoscopy has brought, among other improvements, three-dimensional vision, dexterity, and a comfortable working position, which have reduced the surgeon's fatigability, the difficulties related to the operations and the learning curves of standard laparoscopy. Urology, which makes slightly less use of standard laparoscopy than general or gynaecological surgery, largely benefits from robotics concerning the precision of movements, and has much increased the operating indications of laparoscopy, including the treatment of pyeloureteral junction, kidney tumourectomy, living donor nephrectomy and radical prostactectomy. This chapter describes the operative technique used for the treatment of the ureteropyelic junction stenosis by robotic-assisted laparoscopy, as carried out in Nancy University Hospital with the da Vinci robot (Intuitive Surgical).     

Single port radical prostatectomy: current status

The aim of this study is to analyze the current literature on single port radical prostatectomy (LESS-RP). Single port radical prostatectomy laparoendoscopic (LESS-RP) has established itself as a challenge for urological community, starting with the proposal of different approaches: extraperitoneal, transperitoneal and transvesical, initially described for laparoscopy and then laparoscopy robot-assisted. In order to improve the LESS-RP, new instruments, optical devices, trocars and retraction mechanisms have been developed. Advantages and disadvantages of LESS-RP are controversial, while some claim that it is a non-trustable approach, regarding the low cases number and technical difficulties, others acclaim that despite this facts some advantages have been shown and that previous described difficulties are being overcome, proving this is novel proposal of robotics platform, the Da Vinci SP, integrating the system into “Y”. The LESS-RP approach gives us a new horizon and opens the door for rapid standardization of this technique. The few studies and short series available can be result of a low interest in the application of LESS-RP in prostate, probably because of the technical complexity that it requires. The new robotic platform, the da Vinci SP, shows that it is clear that the long awaited evolution of robotic technologies for laparoscopy has begun, and we must not lose this momentum.     

Open adenomectomy: past, present and future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Open surgery has been the gold standard for the treatment of benign, symptomatic, large volume prostatic hyperplasia. Recent data series, however, have demonstrated that a minimally invasive approach can be used for the treatment of this pathology while duplicating the results of the open technique. This review will describe the different surgical techniques that have been used through the last century for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. RECENT FINDINGS: Surgical management for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia has made a journey from an open approach to robotic surgery. Modifications of the gold standard transurethral resection have been incorporated into clinical practice and include bipolar transurethral resection as well as holmium laser resection and potassium titanyl phosphate laser vaporization. Minimally invasive ablative techniques have also been popularized and include transurethral needle ablation and thermotherapy. Most recently, laparoscopy has demonstrated to be a feasible, safe, reproducible technique that can create similar outcomes to an open technique whilst maintaining the advantages of a minimally invasive approach. Although the future will see greater use of robotics, larger series are needed to prove the advantages of this technology. SUMMARY: Minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of symptomatic benign giant prostatic hyperplasia are replacing open surgery, which has been the gold standard for the surgical treatment of this pathology, duplicating its results with a lower morbidity. Recently we have seen a growing amount of experience treating this disease state with laparoscopic/robotics and the advantages it provides may permit the popularization of this technique.     

Robotic adrenalectomy

The use of robotics in surgery is an emerging field. Robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy has been performed in small numbers worldwide. Advantages of robotic assistance over conventional laparoscopy are not acknowledged. Improvement in robotic technology, including addition of tactile feedback, miniaturization of end-effectors, reduced cost, and advances in remote surgery telecommunication technology are awaited.     

Robotic pediatric urology

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery is penetrating pediatric urology. The freedom afforded by the “surgical actuators” has led to the expanding adoption of robotics, and it is unlikely that much of laparoscopy will not trend toward some iteration of robotic influence. The da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) provides delicate telemanipulation, coalesced with three-dimensional visualization and superior magnification. It has bridged the gap between laparoscopy and open surgery. Nonetheless, a confident understanding of pure laparoscopy is paramount in the event that mechanical malfunction is experienced. Robotic pediatric urologic procedures such as pyeloplasty, ureteral reimplantation, abdominal testis surgery, and partial or total nephrectomy with or without ureteral stump removal are routinely performed at select centers offering robotic expertise. Complex reconstructive surgeries such as appendicovesicostomy, antegrade continent enema creation, and augmentation cystoplasty can be performed but are still in their infancy.     

Minimally Invasive Techniques for Bladder Reconstruction

Purpose of Review

Bladder reconstruction surgery is a key component of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (nLUTD) management. Traditionally, given the complexity and unpredictable operative challenges of bladder reconstruction in this patient population, little consideration has been given to performing lower urinary tract reconstruction in a minimally invasive approach.

Recent Findings

We describe the innovative minimally invasive surgical techniques in four major categories of reconstructive procedures for nLUTD: (A) ileal bladder augmentation, the use of a low morbidity open Pfannenstiel incision and the use of laparoscopy and robotics; (B) creation of a catheterizable channel, the use of laparoscopy and robotics for Mitrofanoff procedures; (C) creation of both a bladder augmentation and catheterizable channel, the use of a hand-assisted approach for the creation of a continent cutaneous ileocystoplasty; and (D) bladder neck artificial urinary sphincter implantation: the use of a robotics.

Summary

Patients with nLUTD need surgical solutions that can improve their quality of life over several decades. As experience with robotics increases and as technology provides us with new tools to ease minimally invasive bladder reconstruction, we can expect that the field will continue to grow and improve.

     

Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair

Primary ventral hernias and ventral incisional hernias have been a challenge for surgeons throughout the ages. In the current era, incisional hernias have increased in prevalence due to the very high number of laparotomies performed in the 20 th century. Even though minimally invasive surgery and hernia repair have evolved rapidly, general surgeons have yet to develop the ideal, standardized method that adequately decreases common postoperative complications, such as wound failure, hernia recurrence and pain. The evolution of laparoscopy and ventral hernia repair will be reviewed, from the rectoscopy of the 4th century to the advent of laparoscopy, from suture repair to the evolution of mesh reinforcement. The nuances of minimally invasive ventral and incisional hernia repair will be summarized, from preoperative considerations to variations in intraoperative practice. New techniques have become increasingly popular, such as primary defect closure, retrorectus mesh placement, and concomitant component separation. The advent of robotics has made some of these repairs more feasible, but only time and well-designed clinical studies will tell if this will be a durable modality for ventral and incisional hernia repair.     

Current trends in urologic laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE: We examined the status of laparoscopy in urology and the impact of residency and fellowship training on the performance of laparoscopy as primary surgeon. We also examined whether performing nonsurgical tasks requiring two-handed dexterity had any link to the adoption of laparoscopic techniques by urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 8760 laparoscopy questionnaires containing 135 queries were mailed to urologists listed on the American Urological Association practicing urologists mailing list. The questions sought information on area of practice, time in practice, fellowship training, ambidexterity, laparoscopic experience, and experience with robotics. The response rate was 1.8% (155 of 8760). RESULTS: There appeared to be no significant correlation between the performance of laparoscopic surgery and participation in activities requiring bimanual dexterity. However, a correlation of strong statistical significance did exist between laparoscopic residency training and performance of laparoscopy after residency (p=0.003. There also was a correlation between fellowship training in laparoscopy/endourology and doing laparoscopy as primary surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in laparoscopic surgery during residency training is a major determining factor in performance of laparoscopy as a primary surgeon in practice. Younger surgeons trained in laparoscopy during residency are performing more laparoscopy post residency than those without laparoscopic training during residency. At present, there is a need to train more urologists in laparoscopy at the postgraduate level.     

Technical and economic reasons to set up robotic surgery in a public health system (Spanish model)

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is today, in any of its four approaches (perineal (PRP), retropubic (ARP), laparoscopic (LRP) or robotic (RRP), the standard surgical treatment in localized prostate cancer. It looks clear that the minimum invasive approaches (laparoscopy and robotics) are able to reduce hospital stay as well as blood loss and therefore transfusion requirement. Also, laparoscopic results at mid and robotics at short term, seem to indicate, that both are safe oncologically and able to obtain same or even superior, functional results. Our objective has been to evaluate the economic impact that these techniques have to consider their definitive implantation, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of its potential implementation in our health system.     

History and perspectives in laparoscopic vascular surgery

Laparoscopic techniques have changed the face of many surgical specialties. In this article, we describe the evolution of laparoscopy in vascular surgery from its beginning in the early 1990s. We discuss the present laparoscopic techniques for treatment of aortoiliac disease, their advantages and limitations. We suggest the vascular surgeon learns laparoscopy on the model used in general surgery a decade ago. Although more studies are needed to further define the role of laparoscopy, present indications can be found in those patients with TASC III and IV occlusive lesions and in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms who are candidate to tube grafts or aortobifemoral bypass. With further refinements in technology (anastomotic stapling device, robotics) and techniques, laparoscopy should replace many open surgeries presently done for aortoiliac disease but will also have to be considered for treatment of mesenteric disease as described in the text.