ROBOT ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC SUTURING LEARNING CURVE IN A SIMULATED SETTING

• Erik Leijte
• Ivo de Blaauw
• Frans Van Workum
• Sanne Botden

Abstract

Background. Compared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing.

Method. Novice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. Each participant performed an intracorporeal suturing task, a tilted plane needle transfer task and an anastomosis needle transfer task. To complete the learning curve, all tasks were repeated up to twenty repetitions or until a time plateau was reached. Clinically relevant and comparable parameters regarding time, movements and safety were recorded. Intracorporeal suturing time and cumulative sum analysis was used to compare the learning curves and phases.

Results. Seventeen participants completed the learning curve laparoscopically and 30 robot assisted. Median first knot suturing time was 611 s (s) for laparoscopic versus 251 s for robot assisted (p<0.001), and this was 324 s versus 165 (6^th knot, p<0.001) and 257 s and 149 s (eleventh knot, p<0.001) respectively on base of the found learning phases. The percentage of ‘adequate surgical knots’ was higher in the laparoscopic than in the robot assisted group. First knot: 71% versus 60%, sixth knot: 100% versus 83%, and eleventh knot: 100% versus 73%. When assessing the ‘instrument out of view’ parameter, the robot assisted group scored a median of 0% after repetition four. In the laparoscopic group, the instrument out of view increased from 3.1 to 3.9% (left) and from 3.0 to 4.1% (right) between the first and eleventh knot (p>0.05).

Conclusion. The learning curve of minimally invasive suturing shows a shorter task time curve using robotic assistance compared to the laparoscopic curve. However, laparoscopic outcomes show good end results with rapid outcome improvement.

Keywords:laparoscopy training, simulation, robotics training, learning curve

References

1. Chandra V., Nehra D., Parent R., Woo R., Reyes R., Hernandez-Boussard T., et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery. 2010; 147: 830-9.

2. Mazzon G., Sridhar A., Busuttil G., Thompson J., Nathan S., Briggs T., et al. Learning curves for robotic surgery: a review of the recent literature. Curr Urol Rep. 2017; 18: 89.

3. Khan R., Plahouras J., Johnston B.C., Scaffidi M.A., Grover S.C., Walsh C.M. Virtual reality simulation training in endoscopy: a Cochrane review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2019; 51 (07): 653-64. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0894-4400

4. Claassen L., van Workum F., Rosman C. Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2019; 11: S777-s785.

5. Botden S.M., de Hingh I.H., Jakimowicz J.J. Suturing training in augmented reality: gaining proficiency in suturing skills faster. Surg Endosc. 2009; 23: 2131-37.

6. Stefanidis D., Wang F., Korndorffer J.R., Dunne J.B., Scott D.J. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010; 24: 377-82.

7. Zihni A., Gerull W.D., Cavallo J.A., Ge T., Ray S., Chiu J., et al. Comparison of precision and speed in laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgical task performance. J Surg Res. 2018; 223: 29-33.

8. Marecik S.J., Chaudhry V., Jan A., Pearl R.K., Park J.J., Prasad L.M. A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and hand-sewn intestinal sutured anastomoses performed by residents. Am J Surg. 2007; 193: 349-55.

9. Passerotti C.C., Franco F., Bissoli J.C.C., Tiseo B., Oliveira C.M., Buchalla C.A.O., et al. Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015; 47: 1075-84.

10. Kassite I., Bejan-Angoulvant T., Lardy H., Binet A. A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity. Surg Endosc. 2019; 33: 353-65.

11. Pernar L.I.M., Robertson F.C., Tavakkoli A., Sheu E.G., Brooks D.C., Smink D.S. An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 4583-96.

12. Barrie J., Jayne D.G., Wright J., Murray C.J., Collinson F.J., Pavitt S.H. Attaining surgical competency and its implications in surgical clinical trial design: a systematic review of the learning curve in laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 829-40.

13. Darzi A., Smith S., Taffinder N. Assessing operative skill. Needs to become more objective. BMJ (Clin Res ed). 1999; 318: 887-8.

14. Retrosi G., Cundy T., Haddad M., Clarke S. Motion analysis-based skills training and assessment in pediatric laparoscopy: construct, concurrent, and content validity for the eoSim simulator. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015; 25: 944-50.

15. Partridge R.W., Hughes M.A., Brennan P.M., Hennessey I.A. Accessible laparoscopic instrument tracking (“InsTrac”): construct validity in a take-home box simulator. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014; 24: 578-83.

16. Hennessey I.A., Hewett P. Construct, concurrent, and content validity of the eoSim laparoscopic simulator. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013; 23: 855-60.

17. Leijte E., Arts E., Witteman B., Jakimowicz J., De Blaauw I., Botden S. Construct, content and face validity of the eoSim laparoscopic simulator on advanced suturing tasks. Surg Endosc. 2019; 33 (11): 3635-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06652-3

18. Hovgaard L.H., Andersen S.A.W., Konge L., Dalsgaard T., Larsen C.R. Validity evidence for procedural competency in virtual reality robotic simulation, establishing a credible pass/fail standard for the vaginal cuff closure procedure. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32: 4200-8.

19. Omar I., Dilley J., Pucher P., Pratt P., Ameen T., Vale J., Darzi A., Mayer E. The robotix simulator: face and content validation using the fundamentals of robotic surgery(FRS)curriculum. J Urol. 2017; 197: e700-e701.

20. Amirian M.J., Lindner S.M., Trabulsi E.J., Lallas C.D. Surgical suturing training with virtual reality simulation versus dry lab practice: an evaluation of performance improvement, content, and face validity. J Robot Surg. 2014; 8: 329-35.

21. Hertz A.M., George E.I., Vaccaro C.M., Brand T.C. Head-to-head comparison of three virtual-reality robotic surgery simulators. JSLS. 2018; 22 (e2017): 00081.

22. Harrison P., Raison N., Abe T., Watkinson W., Dar F., Challacombe B., et al. The validation of a novel robot-assisted radical prostatectomy virtual reality module. J Surg Educ. 2018; 75: 758-66.

23. Whittaker G., Aydin A., Raison N., Kum F., Challacombe B., Khan M.S., Dasgupta P., Ahmed K. Validation of the robotiX mentor robotic surgery simulator. J Endourol. 2016; 30: 338-46.

24. Tanaka A., Graddy C., Simpson K., Perez M., Truong M., Smith R. Robotic surgery simulation validity and usability comparative analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30: 3720-9.

25. Watkinson W., Raison N., Abe T., Harrison P., Khan S., Van der Poel H., Dasgupta P., Ahmed K. Establishing objective benchmarks in robotic virtual reality simulation at the level of a competent surgeon using the RobotiX mentor simulator. Postgrad Med J. 2018; 94: 270-7.

26. Botden S.M., Buzink S.N., Schijven M.P., Jakimowicz J.J. Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World J Surg. 2007; 31: 764-72.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)