Skip to main content
Log in

Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors

What can you feel?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Sensory feedback is reduced considerably in minimally invasive procedures by the interposition of instruments, causing loss of direct manual contact with the tissue. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feedback quality of commercially available reusable and disposable laparoscopic dissectors.

Methods: A total of 31 participants were asked to feel a simulated arterial pulse with their bare fingers and through laparoscopic dissectors, tweezers, an orthopedic forceps, and a laparoscopic low-friction prototype. The absolute sensory threshold was determined by the psychophysical method of limits.

Results: The sensory feedback quality was significantly better for the reusable dissectors tested than for the disposable dissector (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, the reusable dissectors were at least eight times less sensitive than bare fingers. Furthermore, sensitivity qualities were highly variable, depending on the dissector tested.

Conclusions: This study showed that the overall sensitivity loss through instruments could be accurately assessed, proving that the sensory feedback for commercially available instruments was low compared to bare fingers. The good sensory feedback results of the prototype indicated that careful design could decrease the overall sensitivity loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 30 June 1998/Accepted: 20 January 1999

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

den Boer, K., Herder, J., Sjoerdsma, W. et al. Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors . Surg Endosc 13, 869–873 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901122

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649901122

Navigation