Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?

Jing Feng; Kun Yang; Zhang Zhang; Man Li; XiaoJia Chen; Zhiyuan Yan; Zhijiang Du; XingHuan Wang

doi:10.1007/s00464-019-06820-z

Handheld laparoscopic robotized instrument: progress or challenge?

Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb;34(2):719-727. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06820-z. Epub 2019 Jun 17.

Authors

Jing Feng¹, Kun Yang¹, Zhang Zhang¹, Man Li¹, XiaoJia Chen¹, Zhiyuan Yan², Zhijiang Du³, XingHuan Wang⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, ZhongNan Hospital, Wuhan University, No. 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China.
² State Key Laboratory of Robotics and System, Harbin Institute of Technology, No. 92, Xidazhi Street, Nangang District, Harbin, 150000, China.
³ State Key Laboratory of Robotics and System, Harbin Institute of Technology, No. 92, Xidazhi Street, Nangang District, Harbin, 150000, China. Duzj01@hit.edu.cn.
⁴ Department of Urology, ZhongNan Hospital, Wuhan University, No. 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China. Wangxinghuan1966@hotmail.com.

PMID: 31209612
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06820-z

Abstract

Background: Handheld laparoscopic robotized instruments have been developed to combine the advantages of a robotic operation system and conventional laparoscopic instruments. Direct objective standards are needed to quantify surgeons' skill level and validate the advantages of new instruments. This study describes and objectively evaluates the use of a robotized instrument using a force-sensing test platform.

Methods: The test platform consists of 12 rings on a hypersensitive force sensor. Forty volunteers were recruited: the expert group included 20 laparoscopic experts and the novice group included 20 medical students in their 4th year without laparoscopic skills. The baseline of the two groups was identified using a conventional needle holder. Participants then repeated the test with the robotized needle holder after training. The maximum force and impulse of each ring were analyzed for each group. Institutional review board approval is not needed for this study.

Results: Significantly lower maximum force and impulse were observed in the expert group than in the novice group during the baseline test (all P < 0.05). After training, a significant difference remained in maximum force and impulse between the two groups using the robotized needle holder (all P < 0.05). Within each group, there was no difference in maximum force or impulse using the robotized needle holder after training compared to that on using the conventional needle holder (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions: The maximum force and impulse recorded by a test platform can accurately identify participants' laparoscopic skill level. Six hours' training can ensure that experts master the use of the robotized needle holder, but this training session is too short for novices to improve their performance with a new instrument. The force-sensing test platform can reflect the suturing characteristics of users based on the skill level and is useful for laparoscopic suture training.

Keywords: Force sensor; Laparoscopic surgery; Multiple freedom; Robotized needle holder; Suture.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Clinical Competence
Exoskeleton Device*
Humans
Laparoscopy* / instrumentation
Laparoscopy* / methods
Needs Assessment
Robotics / instrumentation*
Surgeons* / education
Surgeons* / standards
Surgical Instruments*
Suture Techniques / instrumentation