Cargando…

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study

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, a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haney, Caelán Max, Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich, Schmidt, Mona Wanda, Lang, Franziska, Bintintan, Vasile, Fan, Carolyn, Wehrtmann, Fabian, Studier-Fischer, Alexander, Felinska, Eleni Amelia, Müller-Stich, Beat Peter, Nickel, Felix
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37072638
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7
_version_ 1785071619780116480
author Haney, Caelán Max
Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich
Schmidt, Mona Wanda
Lang, Franziska
Bintintan, Vasile
Fan, Carolyn
Wehrtmann, Fabian
Studier-Fischer, Alexander
Felinska, Eleni Amelia
Müller-Stich, Beat Peter
Nickel, Felix
author_facet Haney, Caelán Max
Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich
Schmidt, Mona Wanda
Lang, Franziska
Bintintan, Vasile
Fan, Carolyn
Wehrtmann, Fabian
Studier-Fischer, Alexander
Felinska, Eleni Amelia
Müller-Stich, Beat Peter
Nickel, Felix
author_sort Haney, Caelán Max
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10338398
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103383982023-07-14 Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study Haney, Caelán Max Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich Schmidt, Mona Wanda Lang, Franziska Bintintan, Vasile Fan, Carolyn Wehrtmann, Fabian Studier-Fischer, Alexander Felinska, Eleni Amelia Müller-Stich, Beat Peter Nickel, Felix Surg Endosc Article 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7. Springer US 2023-04-18 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10338398/ /pubmed/37072638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Haney, Caelán Max
Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich
Schmidt, Mona Wanda
Lang, Franziska
Bintintan, Vasile
Fan, Carolyn
Wehrtmann, Fabian
Studier-Fischer, Alexander
Felinska, Eleni Amelia
Müller-Stich, Beat Peter
Nickel, Felix
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
title Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
title_full Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
title_fullStr Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
title_full_unstemmed Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
title_short Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
title_sort robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37072638
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10044-7
work_keys_str_mv AT haneycaelanmax roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT kowalewskikarlfriedrich roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT schmidtmonawanda roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT langfranziska roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT bintintanvasile roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT fancarolyn roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT wehrtmannfabian roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT studierfischeralexander roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT felinskaeleniamelia roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT mullerstichbeatpeter roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy
AT nickelfelix roboticassistedversuslaparoscopicbowelanastomosesrandomizedcrossoverinvivoexperimentalstudy