4.5 Article

Do laparoscopic skills transfer to robotic surgery?

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 187, 期 1, 页码 53-58

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.10.014

关键词

Surgical education; Simulation training; Robotic surgery; FLS; Laparoscopy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Identifying the set of skills that can transfer from laparoscopic to robotic surgery is an important consideration in designing optimal training curricula. We tested the degree to which laparoscopic skills transfer to a robotic platform. Methods: Fourteen medical students and 14 surgery residents with no previous robotic but varying degrees of laparoscopic experience were studied. Three fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery tasks were used on the laparoscopic box trainer and then the da Vinci robot: peg transfer (PT), circle cutting (CC), and intracorporeal suturing (IS). A questionnaire was administered for assessing subjects' comfort level with each task. Results: Standard fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery scoring metric were used and higher scores indicate a superior performance. For the group, PT and CCscores were similar between robotic and laparoscopic modalities (90 versus 90 and 52 versus 47; P > 0.05). However, for the advanced IS task, robotic-IS scores were significantly higher than laparoscopic-IS (80 versus 53; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of senior residents revealed a lower robotic-PT score when compared with laparoscopic-PT (92 versus 105; P < 0.05). Scores for CC and IS were similar in this subgroup (64 +/- 9 versus 69 +/- 15 and 95 +/- 3 versus 92 +/- 10; P > 0.05). The robot was favored over laparoscopy for all drills (PT, 66.7%; CC, 88.9%; IS, 94.4%). Conclusions: For simple tasks, participants with preexisting skills perform worse with the robot. However, with increasing task difficulty, robotic performance is equal or better than laparoscopy. Laparoscopic skills appear to readily transfer to a robotic platform, and difficult tasks such as IS are actually enhanced, even in subjects naive to the technology. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据