Force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in simulation training for robot-assisted surgery

Robotic hepaticojejunostomy training in novices using robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing (ROSIM): randomized controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Robotic suturing training is in increasing demand and can be done using suture-pads or robotic simulation training. Robotic simulation is less cumbersome, whereas a robotic suture-pad approach could be more effective but is more costly. A training curriculum with crossover between both approaches may be a practical solution. However, studies assessing the impact of starting with robotic simulation or suture-pads in robotic suturing training are lacking.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled crossover trial conducted with 20 robotic novices from 3 countries who underwent robotic suturing training using an Intuitive Surgical® X and Xi system with the SimNow (robotic simulation) and suture-pads (dry-lab). Participants were randomized to start with robotic simulation (intervention group, n = 10) or suture-pads (control group, n = 10). After the first and second training, all participants completed a robotic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) in biotissue. Primary endpoint was the objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) score during HJ, scored by two blinded raters. Secondary endpoints were force measurements and a qualitative analysis. After training, participants were surveyed regarding their preferences.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 robotic novices completed both training sessions and performed 40 robotic HJs. After both trainings, OSATS was scored higher in the robotic simulation-first group (3.3 ± 0.9 vs 2.5 ± 0.8; p = 0.049), whereas the median maximum force (N) (5.0 [3.2-8.0] vs 3.8 [2.3-12.8]; p = 0.739) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the survey, 17/20 (85%) participants recommended to include robotic simulation training, 14/20 (70%) participants preferred to start with robotic simulation, and 20/20 (100%) to include suture-pad training.

CONCLUSION

Surgical performance during robotic HJ in robotic novices was significantly better after robotic simulation-first training followed by suture-pad training. A robotic suturing curriculum including both robotic simulation and dry-lab suturing should ideally start with robotic simulation.

Feeling of pulsations in artificial arteries with a real time haptic feedback laparoscopic grasper: a validation study

INTRODUCTION

Despite the advancements in technology and organized training for surgeons in laparoscopic surgery, the persistent challenge of not being able to feel the resistance and characteristics of the tissue, including pulsations, remains unmet. A recently developed grasper (Optigrip®) with real time haptic feedback, based on photonic technology, aims to address this issue by restoring the tactile sensation for surgeons. The key question is whether pulsations can be detected and at what minimal size level they become clinical significant.

METHODS

To simulate arterial conditions during laparoscopic procedures, four different silicone tubes were created, representing the most prevalent arteries. These tubes were connected to a validated pressure system, generating a natural pulse ranging between 80 and 120 mm Hg. One control tube without pressure was added. The surgeons had to grasp these tubes blindly with the conventional grasper or the haptic feedback grasper in a randomized order. They then indicated whether they felt the pressure or not and the percentage of correct answers was calculated.

RESULTS

The haptic grasper successfully detected 96% of all pulsations, while the conventional grasper could only detect 6%. When considering the size of the arteries, the Optigrip® identified pulsations in 100% the 4 and 5 mm arteries and 92% of the smallest arteries. The conventional grasper was only able to feel the smallest arteries in 8%. These differences were highly significant (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the newly developed haptic feedback grasper enables detection of arterial pulsations during laparoscopy, filling an important absence in tactile perception within laparoscopic surgery.

The development of tissue handling skills is sufficient and comparable after training in virtual reality or on a surgical robotic system: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality is a frequently chosen method for learning the basics of robotic surgery. However, it is unclear whether tissue handling is adequately trained in VR training compared to training on a real robotic system.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, participants were split into two groups for "Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery (FRS)" training on either a DaVinci VR simulator (VR group) or a DaVinci robotic system (Robot group). All participants completed four tasks on the DaVinci robotic system before training (Baseline test), after proficiency in three FRS tasks (Midterm test), and after proficiency in all FRS tasks (Final test). Primary endpoints were forces applied across tests.

RESULTS

This trial included 87 robotic novices, of which 43 and 44 participants received FRS training in VR group and Robot group, respectively. The Baseline test showed no significant differences in force application between the groups indicating a sufficient randomization. In the Midterm and Final test, the force application was not different between groups. Both groups displayed sufficient learning curves with significant improvement of force application. However, the Robot group needed significantly less repetitions in the three FRS tasks Ring tower (Robot: 2.48 vs. VR: 5.45; p < 0.001), Knot Tying (Robot: 5.34 vs. VR: 8.13; p = 0.006), and Vessel Energy Dissection (Robot: 2 vs. VR: 2.38; p = 0.001) until reaching proficiency.

CONCLUSION

Robotic tissue handling skills improve significantly and comparably after both VR training and training on a real robotic system, but training on a VR simulator might be less efficient.

Review of robotic surgery platforms and end effectors

In the last 50 years, the number of companies producing automated devices for surgical operations has grown extensively. The population started to be more confident about the technology capabilities. The first patents related to surgical robotics are expiring and this knowledge is becoming a common base for the development of future surgical robotics. The review describes some of the most popular companies manufacturing surgical robots. The list of the company does not pretend to be exhaustive but wishes to give an overview of the sector. Due to space constraints, only a limited selction of companies is reported. Most of the companies described are born in America or Europe. Advantages and limitations of each product firm are described. A special focus is given to the end effectors; their shape and dexterity are crucial for the positive outcome of the surgical operations. New robots are developed every year, and existing robots are allowed to perform a wider range of procedures. Robotic technologies improve the abilities of surgeons in the domains of urology, gynecology, neurology, spine surgery, orthopedic reconstruction (knee, shoulder), hair restoration, oral surgery, thoracic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and endoscopy.

Crossover-effects in technical skills between laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted surgery is often performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. However, this technique requires a different set of technical skills and surgeons are expected to alternate between these approaches. The aim of this study is to investigate the crossover effects when switching between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery.

METHODS

An international multicentre crossover study was conducted. Trainees with distinctly different levels of experience were divided into three groups (novice, intermediate, expert). Each trainee performed six trials of a standardized suturing task using a laparoscopic box trainer and six trials using the da Vinci surgical robot. Both systems were equipped with the ForceSense system, measuring five force-based parameters for objective assessment of tissue handling skills. Statistical comparison was done between the sixth and seventh trial to identify transition effects. Unexpected changes in parameter outcomes after the seventh trial were further investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 720 trials, performed by 60 participants, were analysed. The expert group increased their tissue handling forces with 46% (maximum impulse 11.5 N/s to 16.8 N/s, p = 0.05), when switching from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy. When switching from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, intermediates and experts significantly decreased in motion efficiency (time (sec), resp. 68 vs. 100, p = 0.05, and 44 vs. 84, p = 0.05). Further investigation between the seventh and ninth trial showed that the intermediate group increased their force exertion with 78% (5.1 N vs. 9.1 N, p = 0.04), when switching to robot-assisted surgery.

CONCLUSION

The crossover effects in technical skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery are highly depended on the prior experience with laparoscopic surgery. Where experts can alternate between approaches without impairment of technical skills, novices and intermediates should be aware of decay in efficiency of movement and tissue handling skills that could impact patient safety. Therefore, additional simulation training is advised to prevent from undesired events.