Robotic surgery and patient positioning: Ergonomics, clinical pearls and review of literature

The Role of Humans in Surgery Automation

Innovation in healthcare promises unparalleled potential in optimizing the production, distribution, and use of the health workforce and infrastructure, allocating system resources more efficiently, and streamline care pathways and supply chains. A recent innovation contributing to this is robot-assisted surgeries (RAS). RAS causes less damage to the patient's body, less pain and discomfort, shorter hospital stays, quicker recovery times, smaller scars, and less risk of complications. However, introducing a robot in traditional surgeries is not straightforward and brings about new risks that conventional medical instruments did not pose before. For instance, since robots are sophisticated machines capable of acting autonomously, the surgical procedure's outcome is no longer limited to the surgeon but may also extend to the robot manufacturer and the hospital. This article explores the influence of automation on stakeholder responsibility in surgery robotization. To this end, we map how the role of different stakeholders in highly autonomous robotic surgeries is transforming, explore some of the challenges that robot manufacturers and hospital management will increasingly face as surgical procedures become more and more automated, and bring forward potential solutions to ascertain clarity in the role of stakeholders before, during, and after robot-enabled surgeries (i.e. a Robot Impact Assessment (ROBIA), a Robo-Terms framework inspired by the international trade system 'Incoterms', and a standardized adverse event reporting mechanism). In particular, we argue that with progressive robot autonomy, performance, oversight, and support will increasingly be shared between the human surgeon, the support staff, and the robot (and, by extent, the robot manufacturer), blurring the lines of who is responsible if something goes wrong. Understanding the exact role of humans in highly autonomous robotic surgeries is essential to map liability and bring certainty concerning the ascription of responsibility. We conclude that the full benefits the use of robotic innovations and solutions in surgery could bring to healthcare providers and receivers cannot be realized until there is more clarity on the division of responsibilities channeling robot autonomy and human performance, support, and oversight; a transformation on the education and training of medical staff, and betterment on the complex interplay between manufacturers, healthcare providers, and patients.

Evaluation of Positioning Devices for Optimization of Outcomes in Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery

In this review, we evaluate techniques, devices, and equipment for patient positioning and their effect on patient outcomes, such as cephalad slide and neuropathy, in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. We conducted a systematic review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published over a 15-year period. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Seven articles, including 3 randomized controlled trials and 4 case series, were included in our analysis. Four studies evaluated cephalad patient slide. In 2 randomized controlled trials (n = 103), the mean slide with various devices (i.e., memory foam, bean bag with shoulder braces, egg crate, and gel pad) ranged from 1.07 ± 1.93 cm to 4.5 ± 4.0 cm. The use of a bean bag with shoulder supports/braces was associated with minimal slide, with a median slide of 0 cm (range, 0-2 cm) in a retrospective series and with mean slide of 1.07 ± 1.93 cm in a randomized controlled trial (vs memory foam). No conclusive effect of body mass index on slide could be identified. Five studies evaluating the incidence of neuropathy found an overall incidence of 0.16% and no differences among slide-preventing devices. The minimal slide described across studies supports the conclusion that any of the currently used devices and techniques for safe patient positioning are within reason. The low overall incidence of neuropathy is also reassuring. Best evidence recommendations cannot be made for a specific device or technique; our findings suggest the importance of strict adherence to the basic tenets of safe patient positioning to minimize slide and prevent nerve injury.