Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1000 Blythe Blvd., MEB 601, Charlotte, NC 28203, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2011 Jul;25(7):2141-6. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1512-1. Epub 2010 Dec 24.
The value of robotic assistance for intracorporeal suturing is not well defined. We compared robotic suturing with laparoscopic suturing on the FLS model with a large cohort of surgeons.
Attendees (n=117) at the SAGES 2006 Learning Center robotic station placed intracorporeal sutures on the FLS box-trainer model using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the da Vinci® robot. Participant performance was recorded using a validated objective scoring system, and a questionnaire regarding demographics, task workload, and suturing modality preference was completed. Construct validity for both tasks was assessed by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience. A validated questionnaire was used for workload measurement.
Of the participants, 84% had prior laparoscopic and 10% prior robotic suturing experience. Within the allotted time, 83% of participants completed the suturing task laparoscopically and 72% with the robot. Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulated tasks according to the participants' advanced laparoscopic experience, laparoscopic suturing experience, and self-reported laparoscopic suturing ability (p<0.001 for all) and according to prior robotic experience, robotic suturing experience, and self-reported robotic suturing ability (p<0.001 for all), respectively. While participants achieved higher suturing scores with standard laparoscopy compared with the robot (84±75 vs. 56±63, respectively; p<0.001), they found the laparoscopic task more physically demanding (NASA score 13±5 vs. 10±5, respectively; p<0.001) and favored the robot as their method of choice for intracorporeal suturing (62 vs. 38%, respectively; p<0.01).
Construct validity was demonstrated for robotic suturing on the FLS model. Suturing scores were higher using standard laparoscopy likely as a result of the participants' greater experience with laparoscopic suturing versus robotic suturing. Robotic assistance decreases the physical demand of intracorporeal suturing compared with conventional laparoscopy and, in this study, was the preferred suturing method by most surgeons. Curricula for robotic suturing training need to be developed.
机器人辅助进行腔内缝合的价值尚未明确。我们在 SAGES 2006 学习中心机器人站使用传统腹腔镜器械和达芬奇机器人对 FLS 模型进行了机器人缝合与腹腔镜缝合的比较,该研究纳入了大量外科医生。
参加 SAGES 2006 学习中心机器人站培训的学员(n=117)使用传统腹腔镜器械和达芬奇机器人在 FLS 箱式训练器模型上进行腔内缝合。使用经过验证的客观评分系统记录参与者的表现,并完成一份关于人口统计学、任务工作量和缝合方式偏好的调查问卷。通过比较具有不同经验水平的受试者的表现评分来评估两项任务的构建效度。使用经过验证的问卷来测量工作量。
参与者中,84%的人有腹腔镜缝合经验,10%的人有机器人缝合经验。在规定的时间内,83%的参与者完成了腹腔镜缝合,72%的参与者完成了机器人缝合。根据参与者的高级腹腔镜经验、腹腔镜缝合经验和自我报告的腹腔镜缝合能力,这两个模拟任务都表现出了构建效度(均为 p<0.001),根据先前的机器人经验、机器人缝合经验和自我报告的机器人缝合能力,也都表现出了构建效度(均为 p<0.001)。虽然与机器人缝合相比,参与者使用标准腹腔镜时缝合评分更高(分别为 84±75 与 56±63;p<0.001),但他们发现腹腔镜任务的体力要求更高(NASA 评分分别为 13±5 与 10±5;p<0.001),并且更倾向于将机器人作为他们进行腔内缝合的首选方法(分别为 62%与 38%;p<0.01)。
在 FLS 模型上进行机器人缝合的构建效度得到了证明。与机器人缝合相比,标准腹腔镜缝合的评分更高,这可能是由于参与者在腹腔镜缝合方面的经验多于机器人缝合。与传统腹腔镜相比,机器人辅助降低了腔内缝合的体力要求,在这项研究中,大多数外科医生更喜欢这种缝合方法。需要开发机器人缝合培训课程。