Comparison of 8 and 5 mm robotic instruments in small cavities: 5 or 8 mm robotic instruments for small cavities?

Introduction Robotic surgery has seen increasing use in the field of pediatric surgery. Our clinical experience suggested instrument size can impact on the surgical ability. This study aimed to compare the performance of robot-assisted laparoscopic skills in confined spaces using either 5 or 8 mm in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2018-02, Vol.32 (2), p.1027-1034
Hauptverfasser: Ballouhey, Quentin, Clermidi, Pauline, Cros, Jérôme, Grosos, Céline, Rosa-Arsène, Clémence, Bahans, Claire, Caire, François, Longis, Bernard, Compagnon, Roxane, Fourcade, Laurent
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction Robotic surgery has seen increasing use in the field of pediatric surgery. Our clinical experience suggested instrument size can impact on the surgical ability. This study aimed to compare the performance of robot-assisted laparoscopic skills in confined spaces using either 5 or 8 mm instruments. Methods A preclinical randomized crossover study design was implemented. 24 assessors performed three different reproducible drill procedures (M1: peg transfer, M2: circle cutting, M3: intracorporeal suturing). To assess surgical proficiency in confined working spaces, these exercises were performed with 5 and 8 mm instruments of the da Vinci ® Surgical Systems Si in a cubic box with 60 mm-sized edges. Each performance was recorded and evaluated by two reviewers using both objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) and global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS) scores. Parietal iatrogenic impacts and instrument collisions were specifically analyzed using a dedicated scoring system. Results Regardless of their experience, trainees performed significantly better when using 8 mm instruments in terms of OSATS scores (20.5 vs. 18.4; p  
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-017-5781-9