Impact of Motorized Articulating Laparoscopic Devices with Three-Dimension Visualizing System: A Pilot Study

Evaluation of the suitability of using ArtiSential in various renal surgery: IDEAL stage 1 study

BACKGROUND

ArtiSential, a new articulating laparoscopic instruments, addresses the limited movement associated with conventional laparoscopic instruments. This study was conducted to assess the clinical effectiveness of ArtiSential in detailed steps of various renal surgery.

METHODS

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our institution and registered on the Clinical Research Information Service site of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the clinical trial and underwent renal surgery. The clinical effectiveness of ArtiSential was assessed in terms of the feasibility and objective and subjective parameters across 9 detailed steps.

RESULTS

Of the 15 potential candidates enrolled from October 2021 to November 2021, 1 patient dropped out due to anaphylaxis from an anesthetic agent, and 14 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential. Of the 14 patients, 2 patients were converted to laparoscopic surgery using straight-shaped instruments due to the ischemia time exceeding 30 min, and 1 patient due to excessive bleeding. The feasibility for most steps was more than 90%, except the renorrhaphy step. The median total operation time and ischemia time were 161 and 23 min, respectively. The median estimated blood loss was 58.5 mL. Two cases of venous injury occurred during renal pedicle dissection step. The accuracy of the procedure judged by reviewers and usability judged by the operator were acceptable in all steps. The surgeon's quantitatively measured stress score was the highest during renorrhaphy step.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery using ArtiSential is feasible for most steps except the renorrhaphy step. The difficulty of performing renorrhaphy is attributed to prolonged ischemia time, which could be addressed by overcoming the learning curve.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service site of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, KCT0006532. Registered 03/09/2021, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?seq=24071 .

Laparoscopy training of novices with complex curved instruments using 2D- and 3D-visualization

PURPOSE

Beside many advantages, disadvantages such as reduced degrees of freedom and poorer depth perception are still apparent in laparoscopic surgery. 3D visualization and the development of complex instruments are intended to counteract the disadvantages. We want to find out whether the use of complex instruments and 3D visualization has an influence on the performance of novices.

METHODS

48 medical students with no experience in laparoscopic surgery or simulator-based laparoscopy training were included. They were randomized in four groups according to a stratification assessment. During a structured training period they completed the FLS-Tasks "PEG Transfer", "Pattern Cut" and "Intracorporeal Suture" and a transfer task based on these three. Two groups used conventional laparoscopic instruments with 3D or 2D visualization, two groups used complex curved instruments. The groups were compared in terms of their performance.

RESULTS

In 2D laparoscopy there was a better performance with straight instruments vs. curved instruments in PEG Transfer and Intracorporeal Suture. In the transfer task, fewer errors were made with straight instruments. In 2D vs. 3D laparoscopy when using complex curved instruments there was an advantage in Intracorporeal Suture and PEG Transfer for 3D visualization. Regarding the transfer exercise, a better performance was observed and fewer errors were made in 3D group.

CONCLUSION

We could show that learning laparoscopic techniques with complex curved instruments is more difficult with standard 2D visualization and can be overcome using 3D optics. The use of curved instruments under 3D vision seems to be advantageous when working on more difficult tasks.

Evaluation of new motorized articulating laparoscopic instruments by laparoscopic novices using a standardized laparoscopic skills curriculum

Background

Motorized articulating laparoscopic instruments (ALI) offer more degrees of freedom than conventional laparoscopic instruments (CLI). However, a difficult learning curve and complex instrument handling are still a problem of ALI. We compared the performance of new prototypes of motorized ALI with CLI in a series of standardized laparoscopic tasks performed by laparoscopic novices. Further, usability of the new ALI was assessed.

Methods

A randomized cross-over study with 50 laparoscopic novices who either started with CLI and then changed to ALI (CA) or vice versa (AC) was conducted. All participants performed the European training in basic laparoscopic urological skills (E-BLUS) with each instrument in given order. Time and errors were measured for each exercise. Instrument usability was assessed.

Results

Overall, using CLI was significantly faster (CLI 4:27 min vs. ALI 4:50 min; p-value 0.005) and associated with fewer exercise failures in needle guidance (CLI 0 vs. ALI 12; p-value 0.0005) than ALI. Median amount of errors was similar for both instruments. Instrument sequence did not matter, as CA and AC showed comparable completion times. Regarding the learning effect, participants were significantly faster in the second attempt of exercises than in the first. In the needle guidance task, participants using CLI last demonstrated a significant speed improvement, whereas ALI were significantly slower in the second run. Regarding usability, CLI were preferred over ALI due to lighter weight and easier handling. Nevertheless, participants valued ALI’s additional degrees of freedom.

Conclusion

Using new motorized ALI in the E-BLUS examination by laparoscopic novices led to a worse performance compared to CLI. An explanation could be that participants felt overwhelmed by ALI and that ALI have an own distinct learning curve. As participants valued ALI’s additional degrees of freedom, however, a future application of ALI could be for training purposes, ideally in combination with CLI.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-08086-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Three-dimensional (3D) system versus two-dimensional (2D) system for laparoscopic resection of adrenal tumors: a case-control study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopy is the standard technique for resecting adrenal tumors worldwide. The main drawbacks of conventional 2D laparoscopy are limited depth perception and tactile feedback. Currently available high-quality 3D laparoscopy systems might improve surgical outcomes for adrenalectomy. We compare the safety and efficacy of 3D versus 2D laparoscopy in the treatment of adrenal tumors.

METHODS

This case-control study analyzed prospectively collected data from patients with benign or malignant adrenal tumors treated laparoscopically at a single academic medical center between April 2003 and March 2020. We collected demographic, diagnostic, preoperative, and operative variables, and used multiple linear and logistic regression to analyze differences in various short-term outcomes between the two approaches while adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We included 150 patients: 128 with benign tumors and 22 with malignant tumors; 95 treated with 3D laparoscopy (case group); and 55 with 2D laparoscopy (control group). After adjustment for patient, surgical, and tumor characteristics, a 2D vision was associated with a longer operative time (β = 0.26, p = 0.002) and greater blood loss (β = 0.20, p = 0.047). There was no significant difference in rates of conversion to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.47 (95% CI 0.90-22.31); p = 0.549) or complications (3.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.624).

CONCLUSIONS

With experienced surgeons, laparoscopic adrenalectomy was safer and more feasible with the 3D system than with the 2D system, resulting in less operative blood loss and shorter operative time with no differences in rates of conversion to open surgery or postoperative complications. For adrenal tumors, 3D laparoscopy offers advantages over 2D laparoscopy.

Comparative Study of the Influence of Three-Dimensional Versus Two-Dimensional Urological Laparoscopy on Surgeons' Surgical Performance and Ergonomics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the use of three-dimensional (3D) vision systems with traditional two-dimensional systems in laparoscopic urological surgery, analyzing the benefits, limitations, and impact of introducing this medical technology with regard to surgical performance and the surgeon's ergonomics. Methods: A systematic review with a structured bibliographic search was conducted in the electronic libraries (PubMed and EMBASE) until August 2019 and with no language restrictions. Studies on 3D visualization technology in laparoscopic urologic surgery, randomized controlled trials, and observational comparative studies were included. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Results: A total of 25 articles were obtained, of which 4 were clinical studies with patients, 2 studies were carried out in experimental animal models, and the remaining 19 were conducted in simulated environments. Regarding the European training program in basic laparoscopic urological skills, the results showed no significant differences in execution time using either imaging system. Three-dimensional vision led to a significant reduction in surgery time in pyeloplasty and radical nephrectomy. In addition, there was a reported decrease in blood loss in adrenalectomy, nephron-sparing nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, simple nephrectomy, and pyeloplasty using 3D vision. Regarding ergonomics, the studies generally described no differences in side effects (headache, nausea, eye strain) when comparing the two types of visualization systems. Surgeons reported reduced workloads and stress with 3D vision than with traditional laparoscopy. Conclusions: Three-dimensional laparoscopic systems essentially advance surgical performance in less-experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Three-dimensional laparoscopy leads to improvements in surgery time, which is important for specific surgical procedures involving intracorporeal ligatures and sutures. The results achieved on the surgeons' ergonomics showed better depth perception and decreased stress and workloads during 3D vision with no differences in potential side effects.

The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018

BACKGROUND

The use of 3D laparoscopic systems is expanding. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference with the aim of creating evidence-based statements and recommendations for the surgical community.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the PubMed and Embase libraries were performed to identify evidence on potential benefits of 3D on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Statements and recommendations were prepared and unanimously agreed by an international surgical and engineering expert panel which were presented and voted at the EAES annual congress, London, May 2018.

RESULTS

9967 abstracts were screened with 138 articles included. 18 statements and two recommendations were generated and approved. 3D significantly shortened operative time (mean difference 11 min (8% [95% CI 20.29-1.72], I² 96%)). A significant reduction in complications was observed when 3D systems were used (RR 0.75, [95 CI% 0.60-0.94], I² 0%) particularly for cases involving laparoscopic suturing (RR 0.57 [95% CI 0.35-0.90], I² 0%). In 69 box trainer or simulator studies, 64% concluded trainees were significant faster and 62% performed fewer errors when using 3D.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the use of 3D vision in laparoscopy to reduce the operative time (grade of recommendation: low). Future robust clinical research is required to specifically investigate the potential benefit of 3D laparoscopy system on complication rates (grade of recommendation: high).

The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018

BACKGROUND

The use of 3D laparoscopic systems is expanding. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference with the aim of creating evidence-based statements and recommendations for the surgical community.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the PubMed and Embase libraries were performed to identify evidence on potential benefits of 3D on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Statements and recommendations were prepared and unanimously agreed by an international surgical and engineering expert panel which were presented and voted at the EAES annual congress, London, May 2018.

RESULTS

9967 abstracts were screened with 138 articles included. 18 statements and two recommendations were generated and approved. 3D significantly shortened operative time (mean difference 11 min (8% [95% CI 20.29-1.72], I² 96%)). A significant reduction in complications was observed when 3D systems were used (RR 0.75, [95 CI% 0.60-0.94], I² 0%) particularly for cases involving laparoscopic suturing (RR 0.57 [95% CI 0.35-0.90], I² 0%). In 69 box trainer or simulator studies, 64% concluded trainees were significant faster and 62% performed fewer errors when using 3D.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the use of 3D vision in laparoscopy to reduce the operative time (grade of recommendation: low). Future robust clinical research is required to specifically investigate the potential benefit of 3D laparoscopy system on complication rates (grade of recommendation: high).

Assessment of Postural Ergonomics and Surgical Performance in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery Using a Handheld Robotic Device

Purpose. New laparoscopic devices are being continuously developed to overcome some of the technical and ergonomic limitations of laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery. This study aims to assess the surgeon’s surgical performance and ergonomics during the use of a handheld, robotic-driven, articulating laparoscopic instrument during LESS surgery. Methods. Seven right-handed experienced surgeons took part in this study. A set of basic suturing tasks and digestive and urological procedures in a porcine model were performed. Surgeons used both a conventional laparoscopic needle holder and a robotic device. The learning curve, execution time, and precision using the surgical needle were assessed. The surgeon’s posture was analyzed using a motion tracking system and a data glove. Results. After the training period, execution time on the intracorporeal suturing was significantly shorter using the conventional needle holder. The precision was higher using the conventional instrument in the horizontal plane, but the number of attempts to position the needle was lower using the robotic device (1.625 ± 0.250 vs 1.188 ± 0.375 attempts). The extension of the elbow (134.681 ± 14.35° vs 120.631 ± 13.134°) and the flexion of the shoulder (26.122 ± 7.411° vs 18.475 ± 14.166°) were significantly lower using the robotic instrument. The wrist posture using the robotic device was ergonomically acceptable during both surgical procedures. Conclusions. Results show a positive learning curve in ergonomics and surgical performance using the robotic instrument during LESS surgery. This instrument improves the surgeon’s body posture and the needle positioning errors. The use of the robotic instrument is feasible and safe during LESS partial nephrectomy and sigmoidectomy procedures.