Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions

Smart Operating Room in Digestive Surgery: A Narrative Review

The introduction of new technologies in current digestive surgical practice is progressively reshaping the operating room, defining the fourth surgical revolution. The implementation of black boxes and control towers aims at streamlining workflow and reducing surgical error by early identification and analysis, while augmented reality and artificial intelligence augment surgeons' perceptual and technical skills by superimposing three-dimensional models to real-time surgical images. Moreover, the operating room architecture is transitioning toward an integrated digital environment to improve efficiency and, ultimately, patients' outcomes. This narrative review describes the most recent evidence regarding the role of these technologies in transforming the current digestive surgical practice, underlining their potential benefits and drawbacks in terms of efficiency and patients' outcomes, as an attempt to foresee the digestive surgical practice of tomorrow.

Robotic Technology in Emergency General Surgery Cases in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery

Importance

Although robotic surgery has become an established approach for a wide range of elective operations, data on its utility and outcomes are limited in the setting of emergency general surgery.

Objectives

To describe temporal trends in the use of laparoscopic and robotic approaches and compare outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for 4 common emergent surgical procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study of an all-payer discharge database of 829 US facilities was conducted from calendar years 2013 to 2021. Data analysis was performed from July 2022 to November 2023. A total of 1 067 263 emergent or urgent cholecystectomies (n = 793 800), colectomies (n = 89 098), inguinal hernia repairs (n = 65 039), and ventral hernia repairs (n = 119 326) in patients aged 18 years or older were included.

Exposure

Surgical approach (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) to emergent or urgent cholecystectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia repair, or ventral hernia repair.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the temporal trend in use of each operative approach (laparoscopic, robotic, or open). Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery and length of stay (both total and postoperative). Temporal trends were measured using linear regression. Propensity score matching was used to compare secondary outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups.

Results

During the study period, the use of robotic surgery increased significantly year-over-year for all procedures: 0.7% for cholecystectomy, 0.9% for colectomy, 1.9% for inguinal hernia repair, and 1.1% for ventral hernia repair. There was a corresponding decrease in the open surgical approach for all cases. Compared with laparoscopy, robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of conversion to open surgery: cholecystectomy, 1.7% vs 3.0% (odds ratio [OR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.49-0.62]); colectomy, 11.2% vs 25.5% (OR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.32-0.42]); inguinal hernia repair, 2.4% vs 10.7% (OR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.26]); and ventral hernia repair, 3.5% vs 10.9% (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.25-0.36]). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter postoperative lengths of stay for colectomy (-0.48 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.35] days), inguinal hernia repair (-0.20 [95% CI, -0.30 to -0.10] days), and ventral hernia repair (-0.16 [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06] days).

Conclusions and Relevance

While robotic surgery is still not broadly used for emergency general surgery, the findings of this study suggest it is becoming more prevalent and may be associated with better outcomes as measured by reduced conversion to open surgery and decreased length of stay.

Assessment and application of non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Undeniably, robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has become very popular in recent decades, but it has introduced challenges to the workflow of the surgical team. Non-technical skills (NTS) have received less emphasis than technical skills in training and assessment. The systematic review aimed to update the evidence on the role of NTS in robotic surgery, specifically focusing on evaluating assessment tools and their utilisation in training and surgical education in robotic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted to identify primary articles on NTS in RAS. Messick's validity framework and the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument were utilised to evaluate the quality of the validity evidence of the abstracted articles.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were eligible for the final analysis. Communication, environmental factors, anticipation and teamwork were key NTS for RAS. Team-related factors such as ambient noise and chatter, inconveniences due to repeated requests during the procedure and constraints due to poor design of the operating room may harm patient safety during RAS. Three novel rater-based scoring systems and one sensor-based method for assessing NTS in RAS were identified. Anticipation by the team to predict and execute the next move before an explicit verbal command improved the surgeon's situational awareness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review highlighted the paucity of reporting on non-technical skills in robotic surgery with only three bespoke objective assessment tools being identified. Communication, environmental factors, anticipation, and teamwork are the key non-technical skills reported in robotic surgery, and further research is required to investigate their benefits to improve patient safety during robotic surgery.

Human Factors Integration in Robotic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Using the example of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), we explore the methodological and practical challenges of technology integration in surgery, provide examples of evidence-based improvements, and discuss the importance of systems engineering and clinical human factors research and practice.

BACKGROUND

New operating room technologies offer potential benefits for patients and staff, yet also present challenges for physical, procedural, team, and organizational integration. Historically, RAS implementation has focused on establishing the technical skills of the surgeon on the console, and has not systematically addressed the new skills required for other team members, the use of the workspace, or the organizational changes.

RESULTS

Human factors studies of robotic surgery have demonstrated not just the effects of these hidden complexities on people, teams, processes, and proximal outcomes, but also have been able to analyze and explain in detail why they happen and offer methods to address them. We review studies on workload, communication, workflow, workspace, and coordination in robotic surgery, and then discuss the potential for improvement that these studies suggest within the wider healthcare system.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing need to understand and develop approaches to safety and quality improvement through human-systems integration at the frontline of care.Precis: The introduction of robotic surgery has exposed under-acknowledged complexities of introducing complex technology into operating rooms. We explore the methodological and practical challenges, provide examples of evidence-based improvements, and discuss the implications for systems engineering and clinical human factors research and practice.

Perception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery, also known as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), involves a camera and a small surgical instrument attached to a robotic arm. A trained surgeon operates the robot from a viewing screen while being in the same room.

METHODOLOGY

This review was prepared following Cochrane collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two authors independently searched and appraised the studies published in PubMed, cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL), Embase, Clinical Key, and Google Scholar. Pooled data analyzed and reported in RevMan software version-5.4.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis comprised 1400 medical students, from 8 studies. The participants' age ranged from 23 to 49 years. Similarly, the sample size ranged from 25 and 300. The pooled prevalence of the existing studies revealed that 29.8% of medical students, were favorable towards RAS. Effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and heterogeneity (I2) [ES = 29.8, 95% CI 16.4-43.2, I2 = 95.1%, P < 0.00]. About 40% of Australian medical students' positive opinion on RAS [ES = 40.4, 95% CI 25.7-55.2]. Similarly, 34.2% of students from Saudi Arabia [ES = 29.8, 95% CI 22.4-90.8, I2 = 99.3%, P < 0.00], 27.8% students from Canada [ES = 27.8, 95% CI 15.9-39.6], 24.8% from USA [ES = 24.8, 95% CI 6.9-42.7, I2 = 77.3%, P < 0.00] and 24% [ES = 24, 95% CI 18-30] from India favorable towards RAS.

DISCUSSION

Medical students from developed nations display favorable attitudes towards RAS. However, implementing of revised curriculum at the beginning of the graduation level sparks medical students' attitude towards robotic surgery.

Workflow disruptions in robot-assisted surgery

Surgical flow disruptions are unexpected deviations from the natural progression which can potentially compromise the safety of the operation. Separation of the surgeon from the patient and team members is the main contributor for flow disruptions (FDs) in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). FDs have been categorised as communication, coordination, surgeon task considerations, training, equipment/ technology, external factors, instrument changes, and environmental factors. There may be an association between FDs and task error rate. Intervention to counter FDs include training, operating room adjustments, checklists, teamwork, communication improvement, ergonomics, technology, guidelines, workflow optimisation, and team briefing. Future studies should focus on identifying the significant disruptive FDs and the impact of interventions on surgical flow during RAS.

Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper

Background

Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery.

Methods

This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus.

Results

Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations.

Conclusions

Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Opportunities and Barriers to Rural Telerobotic Surgical Health Care in 2021: Report and Research Agenda from a Stakeholder Workshop

Background: There are well-recognized challenges to delivering specialty health care in rural settings. These challenges are particularly evident for specialized surgical health care due to the lack of trained operators in rural communities. Telerobotic surgery could have a significant impact on the rural-urban health care gap, but thus far, the promise of this method of health care delivery has gone unrealized. With the increasing adoption of telehealth over the past year, along with the maturation of telecommunication and robotic technologies over the past 2 decades, a reappraisal of the opportunities and barriers to widespread implementation of telerobotic surgery is warranted. Here we report the outcome of a rural telerobotic stakeholder workshop to explore modern-day issues critical to the advancement of telerobotic surgical health care. Materials and Methods: We assembled a multidisciplinary stakeholder panel to participate in a 2-day Rural Telerobotic Surgery Stakeholder Workshop. Participants had diverse expertise, including specialty surgeons, technology experts, and representatives of the broader telerobotic health care ecosystem, including economists, lawyers, regulatory consultants, public health advocates, rural hospital administrators, nurses, and payers. The research team reviewed transcripts from the workshop with themes identified and research questions generated based on stakeholder comments and feedback. Results: Stakeholder discussions fell into four general themes, including (1) operating room team interactions, (2) education and training, (3) network and security, and (4) economic issues. The research team then identified several research questions within each of these themes and provided specific research strategies to address these questions. Conclusions: There are still important unanswered questions regarding the implementation and adoption of rural telerobotic surgery. Based on stakeholder feedback, we have developed a research agenda along with suggested strategies to address outstanding research questions. The successful execution of these research opportunities will fill critical gaps in our understanding of how to advance the widespread adoption of rural telerobotic health care.