Cargando…

Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy

AIM: Assessments of surgical workflow offer insight regarding procedure variability, case complexity and surgeon proficiency. We utilize an objective method to evaluate step-by-step workflow and step transitions during robotic proctectomy (RP). METHODS: We annotated 31 RPs using a procedure-specific...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gillani, Mishal, Rupji, Manali, Devin, Courtney, Purvis, Lilia, Olson, Terrah Paul, Jarc, Anthony, Shields, Mallory, Liu, Yuan, Rosen, Seth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Journal Experts 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10602135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37886442
http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3462719/v1
_version_ 1785126332382838784
author Gillani, Mishal
Rupji, Manali
Devin, Courtney
Purvis, Lilia
Olson, Terrah Paul
Jarc, Anthony
Shields, Mallory
Liu, Yuan
Rosen, Seth
author_facet Gillani, Mishal
Rupji, Manali
Devin, Courtney
Purvis, Lilia
Olson, Terrah Paul
Jarc, Anthony
Shields, Mallory
Liu, Yuan
Rosen, Seth
author_sort Gillani, Mishal
collection PubMed
description AIM: Assessments of surgical workflow offer insight regarding procedure variability, case complexity and surgeon proficiency. We utilize an objective method to evaluate step-by-step workflow and step transitions during robotic proctectomy (RP). METHODS: We annotated 31 RPs using a procedure-specific annotation card. Using Spearman’s correlation, we measured strength of association of step time and step visit frequency with console time (CT) and total operative time (TOT). RESULTS: Across 31 RPs, a mean (± standard deviation) of 49.0 (± 20.3) steps occurred per procedure. Mean CT and TOT were 213 (± 90) and 283 (± 108) minutes. Posterior mesorectal dissection required most visits (8.7 ± 5.0), while anastomosis required most time (18.0 [± 8.5] minutes). Inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) ligation required least visits (1.0 ± 0.0) and lowest duration (0.9 [± 0.5] minutes). Strong correlations were seen with CT and step times for IMV dissection and ligation (ρ = 0.60 for both), lateral-to-medial splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) (ρ = 0.63), left rectal dissection (ρ = 0.64) and mesorectal division (ρ = 0.71). CT correlated strongly with medial-to-lateral and supracolic SFM visit frequency (ρ = 0.75 and ρ = 0.65). There were strong correlations with TOT and initial exposure time (ρ = 0.60), as well as visit frequency for medial-to-lateral (ρ = 0.67) and supracolic SFM (ρ = 0.65). Descending colon mobilization was nodal, rectal mobilization convergent and rectal transection divergent. CONCLUSION: This study correlates individual surgical steps with CT and TOT through standardized annotation. It provides an objective approach to quantify workflow.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10602135
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Journal Experts
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106021352023-10-27 Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy Gillani, Mishal Rupji, Manali Devin, Courtney Purvis, Lilia Olson, Terrah Paul Jarc, Anthony Shields, Mallory Liu, Yuan Rosen, Seth Res Sq Article AIM: Assessments of surgical workflow offer insight regarding procedure variability, case complexity and surgeon proficiency. We utilize an objective method to evaluate step-by-step workflow and step transitions during robotic proctectomy (RP). METHODS: We annotated 31 RPs using a procedure-specific annotation card. Using Spearman’s correlation, we measured strength of association of step time and step visit frequency with console time (CT) and total operative time (TOT). RESULTS: Across 31 RPs, a mean (± standard deviation) of 49.0 (± 20.3) steps occurred per procedure. Mean CT and TOT were 213 (± 90) and 283 (± 108) minutes. Posterior mesorectal dissection required most visits (8.7 ± 5.0), while anastomosis required most time (18.0 [± 8.5] minutes). Inferior mesenteric vein (IMV) ligation required least visits (1.0 ± 0.0) and lowest duration (0.9 [± 0.5] minutes). Strong correlations were seen with CT and step times for IMV dissection and ligation (ρ = 0.60 for both), lateral-to-medial splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) (ρ = 0.63), left rectal dissection (ρ = 0.64) and mesorectal division (ρ = 0.71). CT correlated strongly with medial-to-lateral and supracolic SFM visit frequency (ρ = 0.75 and ρ = 0.65). There were strong correlations with TOT and initial exposure time (ρ = 0.60), as well as visit frequency for medial-to-lateral (ρ = 0.67) and supracolic SFM (ρ = 0.65). Descending colon mobilization was nodal, rectal mobilization convergent and rectal transection divergent. CONCLUSION: This study correlates individual surgical steps with CT and TOT through standardized annotation. It provides an objective approach to quantify workflow. American Journal Experts 2023-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10602135/ /pubmed/37886442 http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3462719/v1 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.
spellingShingle Article
Gillani, Mishal
Rupji, Manali
Devin, Courtney
Purvis, Lilia
Olson, Terrah Paul
Jarc, Anthony
Shields, Mallory
Liu, Yuan
Rosen, Seth
Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy
title Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy
title_full Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy
title_fullStr Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy
title_short Quantification of Surgical Workflow during Robotic Proctectomy
title_sort quantification of surgical workflow during robotic proctectomy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10602135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37886442
http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3462719/v1
work_keys_str_mv AT gillanimishal quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT rupjimanali quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT devincourtney quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT purvislilia quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT olsonterrahpaul quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT jarcanthony quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT shieldsmallory quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT liuyuan quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy
AT rosenseth quantificationofsurgicalworkflowduringroboticproctectomy