Division of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Jun;112(6):1092-7. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet440. Epub 2014 Jan 23.
This study focuses on a recently developed robotic nerve block system and its impact on learning regional anaesthesia skills. We compared success rates, learning curves, performance times, and inter-subject performance variability of robot-assisted vs manual ultrasound (US)-guided nerve block needle guidance. The hypothesis of this study is that robot assistance will result in faster skill acquisition than manual needle guidance.
Five co-authors with different experience with nerve blocks and the robotic system performed both manual and robot-assisted, US-guided nerve blocks on two different nerves of a nerve phantom. Ten trials were performed for each of the four procedures. Time taken to move from a shared starting position till the needle was inserted into the target nerve was defined as the performance time. A successful block was defined as the insertion of the needle into the target nerve. Average performance times were compared using analysis of variance. P<0.05 was considered significant. Data presented as mean (standard deviation).
All blocks were successful. There were significant differences in performance times between co-authors to perform the manual blocks, either superficial (P=0.001) or profound (P=0.0001); no statistical difference between co-authors was noted for the robot-assisted blocks. Linear regression indicated that the average decrease in time between consecutive trials for robot-assisted blocks of 1.8 (1.6) s was significantly (P=0.007) greater than the decrease for manual blocks of 0.3 (0.3) s.
Robot assistance of nerve blocks allows for faster learning of needle guidance over manual positioning and reduces inter-subject performance variability.
本研究聚焦于一种新开发的机器人神经阻滞系统及其对区域麻醉技能学习的影响。我们比较了机器人辅助与手动超声(US)引导神经阻滞针引导在成功率、学习曲线、操作时间和受试者间操作变异性方面的差异。本研究的假设是,机器人辅助将比手动针引导更快地获得技能。
5 位合著者具有不同的神经阻滞和机器人系统经验,在神经模型的两条不同神经上进行了手动和机器人辅助的 US 引导神经阻滞。每个程序进行了 10 次试验。从共享起始位置移动到将针插入目标神经的时间定义为操作时间。将成功阻滞定义为将针插入目标神经。使用方差分析比较平均操作时间。P<0.05 被认为具有统计学意义。数据表示为平均值(标准差)。
所有阻滞均成功。在进行手动阻滞时,作者之间的操作时间存在显著差异,无论是浅层(P=0.001)还是深层(P=0.0001);在进行机器人辅助阻滞时,作者之间没有统计学差异。线性回归表明,机器人辅助阻滞的连续试验之间的平均时间减少了 1.8(1.6)秒,明显大于手动阻滞的 0.3(0.3)秒。
神经阻滞的机器人辅助可以更快地学习针引导,超过手动定位,并减少受试者间操作变异性。