Laparoscopic Versus Robotic-assisted Suturing Performance Among Novice Surgeons: A Blinded, Cross-Over Study

Measures of performance and proficiency in robotic assisted surgery: a systematic review

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has seen a global rise in adoption. Despite this, there is not a standardised training curricula nor a standardised measure of performance. We performed a systematic review across the surgical specialties in RAS and evaluated tools used to assess surgeons' technical performance. Using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for full texts published on or after January 2020-January 2022. Observational studies and RCTs were included; review articles and systematic reviews were excluded. The papers' quality and bias score were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Score for the observational studies and Cochrane Risk Tool for the RCTs. The initial search yielded 1189 papers of which 72 fit the eligibility criteria. 27 unique performance metrics were identified. Global assessments were the most common tool of assessment (n = 13); the most used was GEARS (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills). 11 metrics (42%) were objective tools of performance. Automated performance metrics (APMs) were the most widely used objective metrics whilst the remaining (n = 15, 58%) were subjective. The results demonstrate variation in tools used to assess technical performance in RAS. A large proportion of the metrics are subjective measures which increases the risk of bias amongst users. A standardised objective metric which measures all domains of technical performance from global to cognitive is required. The metric should be applicable to all RAS procedures and easily implementable. Automated performance metrics (APMs) have demonstrated promise in their wide use of accurate measures.

Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a need to standardize training in robotic surgery, including objective assessment for accreditation. This systematic review aimed to identify objective tools for technical skills assessment, providing evaluation statuses to guide research and inform implementation into training curricula.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ovid Embase/Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criterion: robotic surgery technical skills tools. Exclusion criteria: non-technical, laparoscopy or open skills only. Manual tools and automated performance metrics (APMs) were analysed using Messick's concept of validity and the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence and Recommendation (LoR). A bespoke tool analysed artificial intelligence (AI) studies. The Modified Downs-Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-seven studies were analysed, identifying: 8 global rating scales, 26 procedure-/task-specific tools, 3 main error-based methods, 10 simulators, 28 studies analysing APMs and 53 AI studies. Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and the da Vinci Skills Simulator were the most evaluated tools at LoR 1 (OCEBM). Three procedure-specific tools, 3 error-based methods and 1 non-simulator APMs reached LoR 2. AI models estimated outcomes (skill or clinical), demonstrating superior accuracy rates in the laboratory with 60 per cent of methods reporting accuracies over 90 per cent, compared to real surgery ranging from 67 to 100 per cent.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and automated assessment tools for robotic surgery are not well validated and require further evaluation before use in accreditation processes.PROSPERO: registration ID CRD42022304901.

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.

The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education

Standards of care offer doctors and patients the confidence that an established quality, evidence-based, care is provided, and represent a tool for optimal responding to the population’s needs. It is expected that they will increasingly express a multimodal relationship with gynecologic laparoscopy. Laparoscopy is, now, a standard procedure in operative gynecology, standards are embedded in many laparoscopic procedures, standardization of the skills/competency assessment has been progressively developed, and the proof of competency in laparoscopy may become a standard of care. A continuous development of surgical education includes standard equipment (that may bring value for future advance), standardized training, testing (and performance) assessment, educational process and outcome monitoring/evaluation, patients’ care, and protection, etc. Standards of care and training have a reciprocally sustaining relationship, as training is an essential component of standards of care while care is provided at higher standards after a structured training and as credentialing/certification reunites the two. It is envisaged that through development and implementation, the European wide standards of care in laparoscopic surgery (in close harmonization with personalized medicine) would lead to effective delivery of better clinical services and provide excellent training and education.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level.

METHODS

This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement.

RESULTS

In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Steerable Instruments Performed by Expert Surgeons and Novices

As an alternative to the surgical robot, some medical companies have engineered new steerable devices that mimic the robot’s capacities. This study aimed to assess how steerable instruments ameliorate the efficacy of suturing in comparison with the traditional instrument, and a combination instruments, performed by experienced and novice surgeons. The study was performed by three experienced surgeons and three novice surgeons. The instruments employed were divided into three surgical sets: two steerable dissectors; one steerable dissector and one straight needle; two straight needle holders. The study supervisor recorded the total time for the procedure, the number of bites completed, the time for each bite, and the quality of the procedure. In our study, we found consistent data demonstrating that experienced laparoscopists completed the prescribed suture pattern with more bites in less time than novices. The use of two steerable instruments was more time consuming than standard straight instruments, but a combination of instruments was significantly less time consuming, as was the use of two straight needle holders. This result was even observed in novice surgeons. Combining a steerable instrument with a traditional straight needle holder provided more advantages in this study.