Comparison of Surgical Skills in Laparoscopic and Robotic Tasks Between Experienced Surgeons and Novices in Laparoscopic Surgery: An Experimental Study

Hye Jin Kim; Gyu-Seog Choi; Jun Seok Park; Soo Yeun Park

doi:10.3393/ac.2014.30.2.71

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 30(2); 2014 > Article

Original Article Comparison of Surgical Skills in Laparoscopic and Robotic Tasks Between Experienced Surgeons and Novices in Laparoscopic Surgery: An Experimental Study: Hye Jin Kim, Gyu-Seog Choi, Jun Seok Park, Soo Yeun Park; Annals of Coloproctology 2014;30(2):71-76.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.2.71
Published online: April 25, 2014

Colorectal Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

Correspondence to: Gyu-Seog Choi, M.D. Colorectal Cancer Center, Kyungpook National University Medical Center, 130 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu 700-721, Korea. Tel: +82-53-200-2166, Fax: +82-53-200-2027, kyuschoi@mail.knu.ac.kr

• Received: March 12, 2013 • Accepted: July 17, 2013

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

6,176 Views
52 Download
42 Web of Science
39 Crossref
47 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ARTICLE INFORMATION
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
Robotic surgery is known to provide an improved technical ability as compared to laparoscopic surgery. We aimed to compare the efficiency of surgical skills by performing the same experimental tasks using both laparoscopic and robotic systems in an attempt to determine if a robotic system has an advantage over laparoscopic system.
Methods
Twenty participants without any robotic experience, 10 laparoscopic novices (LN: medical students) and 10 laparoscopically-experienced surgeons (LE: surgical trainees and fellows), performed 3 laparoscopic and robotic training-box-based tasks. This entire set of tasks was performed twice.
Results
Compared with LN, LEs showed significantly better performances in all laparoscopic tasks and in robotic task 3 during the 2 trials. Within the LN group, better performances were shown in all robotic tasks compared with the same laparoscopic tasks. However, in the LE group, compared with the same laparoscopic tasks, significantly better performance was seen only in robotic task 1. When we compared the 2 sets of trials, in the second trial, LN showed better performances in laparoscopic task 2 and robotic task 3; LE showed significantly better performance only in robotic task 3.
Conclusion
Robotic surgery had better performance than laparoscopic surgery in all tasks during the two trials. However, these results were more noticeable for LN. These results suggest that robotic surgery can be easily learned without laparoscopic experience because of its technical advantages. However, further experimental trials are needed to investigate the advantages of robotic surgery in more detail.
Keywords: Robotic surgery; Laparoscopic surgery; Surgical skills

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, advances in laparoscopic surgery have expanded its use to various surgical fields, and laparoscopic procedures are now routinely employed to treat diseases. Several randomized trials have shown that laparoscopic surgery is associated with less surgical trauma, a shorter recovery time and hospital stay, and an improved quality of life [1, 2, 3, 4]. However, despite these advantages, laparoscopic procedures are technically demanding for surgeons, owing to several inevitable drawbacks, including two-dimensional imaging, an unstable camera platform, limited degrees of freedom due to the rigid instrument, and poor ergonomics [5, 6, 7, 8]. For surgical beginners, these factors might contribute to a relatively longer training period in laparoscopy than in open surgery [9].

Surgical robots were introduced in clinical practice in the late 1990s. They were expected to overcome the laparoscopic drawbacks and allow the extension of minimally-invasive surgery to more patients on the basis of technical improvements, such as a three-dimensional view, improved dexterity with an increased range of motion at the tips of the instruments, reduced tremor, enhanced ergonomics, and a stable camera view [10, 11, 12]. Compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, robotic systems may also be expected to allow complex laparoscopic tasks to be performed faster and more accurately and to shorten the learning curve [13, 14]. However, only a few studies have analyzed the superiority of robotic systems, in comparison to laparoscopy, in performing the same procedures [15, 16]. Recently, a few studies have suggested that robotic systems may offer no advantages over laparoscopic instruments [17, 18].

The laboratory has generally been used to measure the acquisition of surgical skills with different modalities [19, 20]. Performance in the laboratory can reflect actual surgical procedures within the operating room. It also allows for exact surveillance, regardless of any differences in conditions between the participants, because surgical performance in the operating room does not rely only on technical skills.

Therefore, we compared the efficiencies of surgical skills by using both laparoscopic and robotic systems to perform the same experimental tasks in an attempt to determine the advantages of robotic systems over laparoscopy. We also supposed that the degree of benefits gained from robotic surgery would be different according to laparoscopic skill level because robotic systems are thought to improve surgical performances more quickly than laparoscopic procedures. Therefore, we also compared the differences in skill acquisitions in each surgical modality between novices and surgeons experienced with laparoscopic systems.

METHODS

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Kyungpook National University Medical Center, and informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to initiating the study. The 10 laparoscopic novices (LN), consisting of medical students, and 10 LE laparoscopically-experienced surgeons (LE), including surgical residents and fellows, participated in this study. LE had formal education in laparoscopy and had participated in laparoscopic surgeries, with more than 3 cases per week and 12 cases per month, but had no experience with robotic systems. LN had no experience with laparoscopic or robotic systems. Before the test, the participants were instructed, through verbal explanations, on the use of both laparoscopic and robotic systems. The participants were allowed two minutes to familiarize themselves with the laparoscopic and the robotic instruments. However, the participants were not allowed to perform any part of the task during the orientation period.

The laparoscopic platform consisted of a training-box, with three preset port sites. A 0° endoscope (Stryker, San Jose, CA, USA), which was manually controlled by an assistant, was used in the middle port site for visualization. For the performance of the laparoscopic tasks, images were projected onto a 21-inch monitor that was in direct view of the participant (Fig. 1A). Two disposable 5-mm Endo-graspers were used in task 1, 2 disposable 5-mm Endo-dissectors were used in task 2, and a 5-mm Endo-needle holder and disposable 5-mm Endo-dissectors were used in task 3:

Task 1 (pick up and give over a bead)

Five beads were placed at the bottom of a 5-cm- × 5-cm-sized circle. Another empty circle was positioned 15 cm away from the initial circle. The goal of the task was to pick up and transfer 5 beads into the other circle, 1 bead at a time. The participants initially performed the task with their dominant hands and then with their nondominant hands. The 5 repetitions consisted of 5-bead transfers with each hand. The time required for task completion was recorded.

Task 2 (ring insertion onto a cone)

The participants picked up a rubber ring, transferred it 10 cm away, and inserted it onto the cone (Fig. 2A). This task was performed with their dominant hand and then with their nondominant hand. For 2 minutes, the total number of inserted rings was recorded.

Task 3 (suturing and tying of 3 knots)

The suturing and tying of 3 knots were evaluated in the training box by using a sponge-block. The task began when the surgeon had loaded the needle, along with a 15-cm polyglactin 3-0 suture (Vicryl), onto the Endo-needle holder or robotic needle driver (Fig. 2B). An artificial suture sponge was affixed to the floor of a training box, and each person made a suture and tied 3 knots.

The robotic platform consisted of the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), a surgeon's console, three robotic arms, and a vision cart. The participants were seated at the console with a combination of hand and foot controls for the robotic arms, instruments, and an Intuitive 0° endoscope, which was held by the center arm (Fig. 1B). Three-dimensional images were displayed on the surgeon's console, and a two-dimensional image was projected onto a standard 21-inch monitor for the observer. For all tasks, the EndoWrist instruments, including a needle driver and forceps, were used. Two trials were performed with an 8-week interval to minimize the effect of the participants' memories of each task.

Statistical calculations were completed using statistical software SPSS ver. 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Continuous data between the groups were recorded as the mean value of each variable. Categorical variables were recorded as a number and were compared using the Fisher exact test or χ² test, as appropriate. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 20 participants completed the tasks on all 3 of the instrument sets. LE consisted of 6 men and 4 women, and the mean age was 30.9 years (range, 28 to 33 years). LN consisted of 5 men and 5 women, and the mean age was 28.2 years (range, 25 to 33 years).

The performance results from all tasks are summarized according to the laparoscopic experience levels in Table 1. Compared to LN, LE showed significantly better performances in all laparoscopic tasks. These results were also shown in the second trial. Similarly, in the robotic tasks, LE were faster and demonstrated better performances than LN. However, the only result that was statistically significant in both trials was the measure from robotic task 3.

The results are summarized according to the surgical modalities in Tables 2 and 3. When comparing all participants regardless of laparoscopic experience level, the robotic system was significantly faster and showed better performance than laparoscopy in all tasks and trials (Table 2). Comparing the two modalities, according to laparoscopic experience levels, within the LN group, better performances were shown in all robotic tasks than in the same laparoscopic tasks. Whereas within the LE group, significantly better performance was observed only in robotic task 1. Comparing the two trials, there was no significant differences except laparoscopic task 2 and robotic task 3 (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Advances in laparoscopic surgery have resulted in many changes to the clinical practice of surgery. However, the pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery have still caused undesirable fatigue for surgeons and require relatively longer learning periods than open surgery [9]. When the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc.) was introduced for surgery, this robotic approach was expected to offer potential solutions to the problems of the laparoscopic approach in various surgical fields based on the advancement of technology [8, 9, 10, 21]. However, to date, only a few studies have analyzed the advantages of robotic systems in comparison to laparoscopic approaches by measuring the performances of the same procedures [15, 16]. Therefore, in the present study, we compared the surgical skill acquisition between conventional laparoscopic instruments and surgical robotic systems through the experimental performance of basic laparoscopic tasks to demonstrate the advantages of robotic systems and laparoscopic instruments.

In the present study, the participants had significantly better results with the robotic system than with the laparoscopic instruments while performing the same basic skills. These results originated from the several previously-mentioned advantages of robotic systems over conventional laparoscopic instruments. Among them, improved dexterity, with multiarticulated instruments mimicking the human wrist, and high-definition three-dimensional view may mainly contribute to the rapid skill acquisition when using robotic system. First, the EndoWrist instruments of the robotic system especially contributed to the excellent records in performing task 3, compared to laparoscopic approach, because the articulating robotic needle driver is very convenient for suturing and tying a knot. As a result, LN could shorten the amount of time to suture and tie a knot 3 times by up to 200 seconds in the first trial and by up to 120 seconds in the second trial (Table 3). LE also shortened the actual time of performing task 3 by up to 100 seconds in the first trial and by up to 60 seconds in the second trial, although the time differences among the 2 approaches were not statistically significant. The three-dimensional view improved the participants' visual perspectives and precise movement abilities in picking up and placing the object by recovering the perspectives. In addition, the robotic system could help the participants perform basic tasks with their unskilled, nondominant hands when they were required to alternate and coordinate their dominant and nondominant hands in the robotic console. Because of this strength of the robotic system, the participants were had the time necessary to accurately and precisely perform all of the tasks (Table 3).

However, the robotic system seems to have given more benefits to the LN group than the LE group. The reason is that the LN group had significantly better performances with the robotic systems in all tasks than they had with the laparoscopic instruments, but LE only had statistically significant better results in robotic task 1 of the 2 trials compared to that of the laparoscopic tasks. However, all LE also had better results for the robotic tasks than they had for the laparoscopic tasks. Laparoscopic experience may contribute to the better performance results seen in the robotic tasks, considering the better performance results of LE. However, based on the results of the LN, the surgeon who does not have any surgical or laparoscopic experience also can rapidly learn to perform surgical tasks in less time by using robotic systems. One possible reason for these results may be that robotic systems have a more user-friendly interface than laparoscopic instruments do [16]. Another explanation might be that robotic systems are designed spespecifically to mimic the same hand motions as those used during open surgery. We deem that our results support the concept that the inexperienced in laparoscopic surgery may have improved proficiencies and may more quickly and easily acquire surgical skills with the use of robotic systems.

In the present study, although there were only two trials, by using both the laparoscopic and the robotic systems, the participants seemed to show more improvements in speed and skill with repetition in performing robotic tasks. Although this result did not represent an improvement of surgical skill, it shows the possibility of a shorter learning period in the robotic approach because the improvement in the result was noticeable in robotic surgery, regardless of the participants' laparoscopic experience levels and despite the higher score in the first trial compared to laparoscopic approach. The preliminary result of the learning curve for the robotic approach showed that the use of the robotic approach may even reduce the learning curve for the laparoscopic approach. Another recent study showed that the transfer of an open surgical skill to a video-assisted environment required only 12 robotic operations, with outcomes similar to those of a skilled laparoscopic surgeon after more than 100 laparoscopic procedures [14]. However, if a more complete characterization of the learning curve is to be established, experiments, including more extended repetitions, are required.

This study had several limitations. The conventional variables measured during the task performance, time and score, are regarded as being insufficient to fully explain the aspects of surgical performance [22, 23]. Skilled performance with a robotic system may include other qualitative aspects, and these should be addressed in the objective assessment of the performance. In addition, suturing and tying a knot is a procedure to acquire a skill by practicing a method. Therefore, the previous experience with open surgery in the LE group may have the effect of producing a better result in performing task 3 in the LE group than in LN group. A more objective module is required to evaluate skill acquisition according to the surgical approach. Another limitation was the limited number of repetitions in performing the tasks. Therefore, we cannot speculate on the learning curve for robotic systems based on these results.

Skill development in a laparoscopic or robotic system is fundamentally different from that in open surgery; to date, there has been limited research regarding surgical skill acquisition with these sophisticated systems [24, 25]. Robotic systems are still developing, and with more experience and adjusted equipment, performance with robotic systems is likely to improve. More research is required to assess the advantages and the disadvantages of using both laparoscopic and robotic systems. Comparisons regarding performances with robotic systems and with conventional laparoscopic instruments, particularly with more complex tasks, should, therefore, be made after consistent performance baselines have been determined to avoid confounding issues that are more related to the learning curve of each modality.

Acknowledgments

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by a Biomedical Research Institute grant, Kyungpook National University Hospital (2011).

ARTICLE INFORMATION

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

REFERENCES

1. A prospective analysis of 1,518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1073–1078. Article PubMed
2. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique JM, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359:2224–2229. Article PubMed PMC
3. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;365:1718–1726. Article PubMed
4. Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinee S, Abbou CC, Eypasch E, Caballero MG, et al. Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 2004;18:879–897. Article PubMed
5. Ballantyne GH. The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2002;12:1–5. Article PubMed
6. Gallagher AG, Richie K, McClure N, McGuigan J. Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced, junior, and novice laparoscopists with virtual reality. World J Surg 2001;25:1478–1483. Article PubMed
7. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Mehrabi A, Kashfi A, Schemmer P, Buchler MW. Robot-assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 2004;91:1390–1397. Article PubMed
8. Quick NE, Gillette JC, Shapiro R, Adrales GL, Gerlach D, Park AE. The effect of using laparoscopic instruments on muscle activation patterns during minimally invasive surgical training procedures. Surg Endosc 2003;17:462–465. Article PubMed
9. Subramonian K, DeSylva S, Bishai P, Thompson P, Muir G. Acquiring surgical skills: a comparative study of open versus laparoscopic surgery. Eur Urol 2004;45:346–351. Article PubMed
10. D'Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:2162–2168. Article PubMed
11. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1389–1402. Article PubMed
12. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 2001;25:1467–1477. Article PubMed
13. Garcia-Ruiz A, Gagner M, Miller JH, Steiner CP, Hahn JF. Manual vs robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks. Arch Surg 1998;133:957–961. Article PubMed
14. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1738–1741. Article PubMed
15. Heemskerk J, van Gemert WG, de Vries J, Greve J, Bouvy ND. Learning curves of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study evaluating skill acquisition of robot-assisted laparoscopic tasks compared with conventional laparoscopic tasks in inexperienced users. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2007;17:171–174. Article PubMed
16. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002;60:39–45. Article
17. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Wolf RK, Michler RE, et al. Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1790–1792. Article PubMed
18. Nio D, Balm R, Maartense S, Guijt M, Bemelman WA. The efficacy of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic vascular anastomoses in an experimental model. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2004;27:283–286. Article PubMed
19. Kopta JA. An approach to the evaluation of operative skills. Surgery 1971;70:297–303. PubMed
20. Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W. Testing technical skill via an innovative "bench station" examination. Am J Surg 1997;173:226–230. Article PubMed
21. Choi GS, Park IJ, Kang BM, Lim KH, Jun SH. A novel approach of robotic-assisted anterior resection with transanal or transvaginal retrieval of the specimen for colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2831–2835. Article PubMed
22. Bann SD, Khan MS, Darzi AW. Measurement of surgical dexterity using motion analysis of simple bench tasks. World J Surg 2003;27:390–394. Article PubMed
23. Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Martin S, et al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 2004;18:372–378. Article PubMed
24. Hashizume M, Konishi K, Tsutsumi N, Yamaguchi S, Shimabukuro R. A new era of robotic surgery assisted by a computer-enhanced surgical system. Surgery 2002;131(1 Suppl): S330–S333. Article PubMed
25. Jacobs LK, Shayani V, Sackier JM. Determination of the learning curve of the AESOP robot. Surg Endosc 1997;11:54–55. Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Laparoscopic platform (A) and robotic platform (B).

Fig. 2

(A) Robotic task 2, moving the rubber ring and inserting it into the cone, and (B) robotic task 3, suturing and tying three knots.

Table 1

Summary of task results

Values are presented as a mean (range).

LN, laparoscopic novice; LE, laparoscopically-experienced surgeon.

^aTime (sec) for performing task 1, picking up and giving over the five beads into the circle. ^bNumbers of rubber ring for performing task 2, moving the rubber ring and inserting it into the cone for 2 minutes. ^cTime (sec) for performing the task 3, suturing and tying three knots.

Table 2

Comparison of the times to perform laparoscopic and robotic tasks in all participants

Values are presented as a mean (range).

Table 3

Comparison of the times to perform laparoscopic and robotic tasks according to the experience level of the surgeon with laparoscopy

Values are presented as a mean (range).

LN, laparoscopic novice; LE, laparoscopically-experienced surgeon.

Table 4

Comparison of the times to perform the first and the second trials

Values are presented as a mean (range).

LN, laparoscopic novice; LE, laparoscopically-experienced surgeon.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Robotic Surgery in Severely Obese Frail Patients for the Treatment of Atypical Endometrial Hyperplasia and Endometrial Cancer: A Propensity-Match Analysis at an ESGO-Accredited Center
Martina Arcieri, Federico Paparcura, Cristina Giorgiutti, Cristina Taliento, Giorgio Bogani, Lorenza Driul, Pantaleo Greco, Alfredo Ercoli, Vito Chiantera, Francesco Fanfani, Anna Fagotti, Giovanni Scambia, Andrea Mariani, Stefano Restaino, Giuseppe Vizzi
Cancers.2025; 17(3): 482. CrossRef
Design of Automatic Tool Replacement Mechanism for Laparoscopic Surgical Robot Arm for Solo Surgery
Daehwan Ko, Yeonkyoung Kim, Hongseok Lim, Sungmin Kim
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Learning Curves Associated With Robotic Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review
Abith Ganesh Kamath, Saran Singh Gill, Srikar Reddy Namireddy, Matija Krkovic
Orthopaedic Surgery.2025; 17(9): 2529. CrossRef
Propensity score matching analysis comparing of robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy: an single-center study of 2999 cases
Tianci Luo, Hucheng Ma, Weiwei Zong, Jin Peng, Bing Han, Wei Hu, Fei Wang, Dongjun Luo, Yifan Ji, Xinhua Zhu, Decai Yu
HPB.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoscopic but not open surgical skills can be transferred to robot‐assisted surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Mona W. Schmidt, Carolyn Fan, Karl F. Köppinger, Leon P. Schmidt, Anna Brechter, Eldrige F. Limen, Johannes A. Vey, Matthes Metz, Beat P. Müller‐Stich, Felix Nickel, Karl‐Friedrich Kowalewski
World Journal of Surgery.2024; 48(1): 14. CrossRef
Transferring laparoscopic skills to robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review
Karishma Behera, Matthew McKenna, Laurie Smith, Gerard McKnight, James Horwood, Michael M. Davies, Jared Torkington, James Ansell
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Looking to the Future; Veterinary Robotic Surgery
Nicole J. Buote
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice.2024; 54(4): 735. CrossRef
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach: Is There Any Advantage of Robotic Resections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Carlo Alberto Schena, Andrea-Pierre Luzzi, Vito Laterza, Belinda De Simone, Filippo Aisoni, Paschalis Gavriilidis, Fausto Catena, Federico Coccolini, Francesca Morciano, Fausto Rosa, Francesco Marchegiani, Nicola de’Angelis
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2024; 34(7): 603. CrossRef
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic short- and long-term outcomes in complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pedja Cuk, Mohamad Jawhara, Issam Al-Najami, Per Helligsø, Andreas Kristian Pedersen, Mark Bremholm Ellebæk
Techniques in Coloproctology.2023; 27(3): 171. CrossRef
Force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in simulation training for robot-assisted surgery
A. Masie Rahimi, Sem F. Hardon, E. Willuth, F. Lang, Caelan M. Haney, Eleni A. Felinska, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Tim Horeman, F. Nickel, Freek Daams
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(6): 4414. CrossRef
The future of robotics in the treatment of abdominal wall hernias: A narrative review
Estella Y Huang, Daniel Chung, Bryan J Sandler, Garth R Jacobsen, Santiago Horgan, Ryan C Broderick
International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery.2023; 6(2): 81. CrossRef
Transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review
Pia Iben Pietersen, Peter Hertz, Rikke Groth Olsen, Louise Birch Møller, Lars Konge, Flemming Bjerrum
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(12): 9030. CrossRef
Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Huiming Wu, Renkai Guo, Huiyu Li
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study
E. Willuth, S. F. Hardon, F. Lang, C. M. Haney, E. A. Felinska, K. F. Kowalewski, B. P. Müller-Stich, T. Horeman, F. Nickel
Surgical Endoscopy.2022; 36(2): 1064. CrossRef
Minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynaecological malignancy: A single-centre case series and review of the literature
Rebecca Karkia, Anil Tailor, Patricia Ellis, Thumuluru Madhuri, Andrea Scala, James Read, Matthew Perry, Krishna Patil, Adam Blackburn, Simon Butler-Manuel, Jayanta Chatterjee
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology.2022; 274: 56. CrossRef
Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Julie Flynn, Jose T. Larach, Joseph C.H. Kong, Peadar S. Waters, Jacob J. McCormick, Satish K. Warrier, Alexander Heriot
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2022; 65(10): 1191. CrossRef
Transfer of open and laparoscopic skills to robotic surgery: a systematic review
Baldev Chahal, Abdullatif Aydın, Mohammad S. Ali Amin, Kelly Ong, Azhar Khan, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Kamran Ahmed, Prokar Dasgupta
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 17(4): 1207. CrossRef
Robotic training for medical students: feasibility of a pilot simulation curriculum
Anya L. Greenberg, Shareef M. Syed, Adnan Alseidi, Patricia S. O’Sullivan, Hueylan Chern
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2022; 17(3): 1029. CrossRef
Can video games enhance surgical skills acquisition for medical students? A systematic review
Arnav Gupta, Bishoy Lawendy, Mitchell G. Goldenberg, Ethan Grober, Jason Y. Lee, Nathan Perlis
Surgery.2021; 169(4): 821. CrossRef
Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes
Charles C. Vining, Kinga B. Skowron, Melissa E. Hogg
Updates in Surgery.2021; 73(3): 799. CrossRef
Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Endometrial and Cervical Cancer
C. Uwins, H. Patel, G. Prakash Bhandoria, S. Butler-Manuel, A. Tailor, P. Ellis, J. Chatterjee
Clinical Oncology.2021; 33(9): e372. CrossRef
Robotic and Endoscopic Approaches to Head and Neck Surgery
Andrew J. Holcomb, Jeremy D. Richmon
Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America.2021; 35(5): 875. CrossRef
The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review
Julie Flynn, José Tomás Larach, Joseph C. H. Kong, Peadar S. Waters, Satish K. Warrier, Alexander Heriot
Colorectal Disease.2021; 23(11): 2806. CrossRef
Robotics vs Laparoscopy—Are They Truly Rivals?
Natalie Liu, Jacob A. Greenberg
JAMA Surgery.2020; 155(5): 388. CrossRef
Robotic radical hysterectomy for stage 1B1 cervical cancer: A case series of survival outcomes from a leading UK cancer centre
Hersha Patel, Kavitha Madhuri, Thomas Rockell, Rugaia Montaser, Patricia Ellis, Jayanta Chatterjee, Simon Butler‐Manuel, Anil Tailor
The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
A multi-modal approach to cognitive training and assistance in minimally invasive surgery
Tina Vajsbaher, Tim Ziemer, Holger Schultheis
Cognitive Systems Research.2020; 64: 57. CrossRef
Systematic review and meta‐analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy
Daniel J. Wong, Michelle J. Wong, Gi Hong Choi, Yao Ming Wu, Paul B. Lai, Brian K. P. Goh
ANZ Journal of Surgery.2019; 89(3): 165. CrossRef
Objective assessment of robotic suturing skills with a new computerized system: A step forward in the training of robotic surgeons
Caleb Busch, Ryu Nakadate, Munenori Uemura, Satoshi Obata, Takahiro Jimbo, Makoto Hashizume
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2019; 12(4): 388. CrossRef
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center
Mike Fruscione, Ryan Pickens, Erin H. Baker, Allyson Cochran, Adeel Khan, Lee Ocuin, David A. Iannitti, Dionisios Vrochides, John B. Martinie
HPB.2019; 21(7): 906. CrossRef
Soft Robotics in Minimally Invasive Surgery
Mark Runciman, Ara Darzi, George P. Mylonas
Soft Robotics.2019; 6(4): 423. CrossRef
Is the Caribbean ready for robotics?
Jorge Rabaza
International Journal of Surgery.2019; 72: 3. CrossRef
Robot-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe but costly approach: A national database review
Bhavani Pokala, Laura Flores, Priscila R. Armijo, Vishal Kothari, Dmitry Oleynikov
The American Journal of Surgery.2019; 218(6): 1213. CrossRef
Does Previous Laparoscopic Experience Influence Basic Robotic Surgical Skills?
Marcelo Pimentel, Renan Desimon Cabral, Márcio Machado Costa, Brasil Silva Neto, Leandro Totti Cavazzola
Journal of Surgical Education.2018; 75(4): 1075. CrossRef
Visuospatial abilities and fine motor experiences influence acquisition and maintenance of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) task performance
Cuan M. Harrington, Patrick Dicker, Oscar Traynor, Dara O. Kavanagh
Surgical Endoscopy.2018; 32(11): 4639. CrossRef
Distraction and proficiency in laparoscopy: 2D versus robotic console 3D immersion
Steven Kim, Audriene May, Heidi Ryan, Adnan Mohsin, Shawn Tsuda
Surgical Endoscopy.2017; 31(11): 4625. CrossRef
Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-sized ventral hernias
Y. Julia Chen, Desmond Huynh, Scott Nguyen, Edward Chin, Celia Divino, Linda Zhang
Surgical Endoscopy.2017; 31(3): 1275. CrossRef
3D straight-stick laparoscopy versus 3D robotics for task performance in novice surgeons: a randomised crossover trial
Fevzi Shakir, Haider Jan, Andrew Kent
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(12): 5380. CrossRef
Da Vinci© Skills Simulator™: is an early selection of talented console surgeons possible?
Mark Meier, Kevin Horton, Hubert John
Journal of Robotic Surgery.2016; 10(4): 289. CrossRef
Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices
Carlo C. Passerotti, Felipe Franco, Julio C. C. Bissoli, Bruno Tiseo, Caio M. Oliveira, Carlos A. O. Buchalla, Gustavo N. C. Inoue, Arzu Sencan, Aydin Sencan, Rogerio Ruscitto do Pardo, Hiep T. Nguyen
International Urology and Nephrology.2015; 47(7): 1075. CrossRef

Cite this Article

Cite this Article: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Comparison of Surgical Skills in Laparoscopic and Robotic Tasks Between Experienced Surgeons and Novices in Laparoscopic Surgery: An Experimental Study

Ann Coloproctol. 2014;30(2):71-76. Published online April 25, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2014.30.2.71

XML Download

Figure

Comparison of Surgical Skills in Laparoscopic and Robotic Tasks Between Experienced Surgeons and Novices in Laparoscopic Surgery: An Experimental Study

Fig. 1 Laparoscopic platform (A) and robotic platform (B).

Fig. 2 (A) Robotic task 2, moving the rubber ring and inserting it into the cone, and (B) robotic task 3, suturing and tying three knots.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Comparison of Surgical Skills in Laparoscopic and Robotic Tasks Between Experienced Surgeons and Novices in Laparoscopic Surgery: An Experimental Study

Table 1

Summary of task results