Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Surgical Endoscopy
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 5/2021

04.01.2021 | Review Article

Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions

verfasst von: Falisha Kanji, Ken Catchpole, Eunice Choi, Myrtede Alfred, Kate Cohen, Daniel Shouhed, Jennifer Anger, Tara Cohen

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 5/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The introduction of a robot into the surgical suite changes the dynamics of the work-system, creating new opportunities for both success and failure. An extensive amount of research has identified a range of barriers to safety and efficiency in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS), such as communication breakdowns, coordination failures, equipment issues, and technological malfunctions. However, there exists very few solutions to these barriers. The purpose of this review was to identify the gap between identified RAS work-system barriers and interventions developed to address those barriers.

Methods

A search from three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline) was conducted for literature discussing system-level interventions for RAS that were published between January 1, 1985 to March 17, 2020. Articles describing interventions for systems-level issues that did not involve technical skills in RAS were eligible for inclusion.

Results

A total of 30 articles were included in the review. Only seven articles (23.33%) implemented and evaluated interventions, while the remaining 23 articles (76.67%) provided suggested interventions for issues in RAS. Major barriers identified included disruptions, ergonomic issues, safety and efficiency, communication, and non-technical skills. Common solutions involved team training, checklist development, and workspace redesign.

Conclusion

The review identified a significant gap between issues and solutions in RAS. While it is important to continue identifying how the complexities of RAS affect operating room (OR) and team dynamics, future work will need to address existing issues with interventions that have been tested and evaluated. In particular, improving RAS-associated non-technical skills, task management, and technology management may lead to improved OR dynamics associated with greater efficiency, reduced costs, and better systems-level outcomes.
Literatur
1.
Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704PubMedCrossRef
2.
Gupta P, Schomburg J, Krishna S, Adejoro O, Wang Q, Marsh B, Nguyen A, Genere JR, Self P, Lund E (2017) Development of a classification scheme for examining adverse events associated with medical devices, specifically the DaVinci surgical system as reported in the FDA MAUDE database. J Endourol 31:27–31PubMedCrossRef
3.
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, Brubaker L, Bresee C, Kenton K (2014) Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123:5PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Sussman RD, Peyronnet B, Brucker BM (2019) The current state and the future of robotic surgery in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Turk J Urol 45:331PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Parsons JK, Messer K, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Chang D (2014) Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. JAMA Surg 149:845–851PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman B, Fritch J, Gross B, Jagannathan S, Hakami-Majd N, Avenido R, Anger JT (2016) Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc 30:3749–3761PubMedCrossRef
7.
Catchpole KR, Hallett E, Curtis S, Mirchi T, Souders CP, Anger JT (2018) Diagnosing barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery. Ergonomics 61:26–39PubMedCrossRef
8.
Jain M, Fry BT, Hess LW, Anger JT, Gewertz BL, Catchpole K (2016) Barriers to efficiency in robotic surgery: the resident effect. J Surg Res 205:296–304PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Ahmad N, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Sharif M, Allers JC, Hinata N, Ahmad B, Kozlowski JG, Hashmi Z, Bisantz A, Guru KA (2016) Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int 118(1):132–139PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Kozlowski JD, Sharif MA, Winder NM, Ahmad N, Allers J, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2016) The loud surgeon behind the console: understanding team activities during robot-assisted surgery. J Surg Educ 73:504–512PubMedCrossRef
11.
Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MM, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S, Kjellman M, Forsman M (2017) Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc 31:877–886PubMedCrossRef
12.
Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Pearman A, Greenhalgh J, Long A, Gardner P, Gill A, Jayne D, Dowding D (2016) Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams. Cogn Technol Work 18:423–437CrossRef
13.
Catchpole K, Bisantz A, Hallbeck S, Weigl M, Randell R, Kossack M, Anger J (2018) Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: lessons from studies ‘in the wild.’ Appl Ergon 78:270–276PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman B, Fritch J, Gross B, Jagannathan S, Hakami-Majd N, Avenido R (2016) Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc 30:3749–3761PubMedCrossRef
15.
Lai F, Entin E (2005) Robotic surgery and the operating room team. SAGE, Los Angeles, pp 1070–1073
16.
Lingard L, Regehr G, Orser B, Reznick R, Baker GR, Doran D, Espin S, Bohnen J, Whyte S (2008) Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. Arch Surg 143:12–17PubMedCrossRef
17.
Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Rogers SO, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA (2007) Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 204:533–540PubMedCrossRef
18.
Rogers SO, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, Studdert DM (2006) Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery 140:25–33PubMedCrossRef
19.
Bismark MM, Brennan TA, Paterson RJ, Davis PB, Studdert DM (2006) Relationship between complaints and quality of care in New Zealand: a descriptive analysis of complainants and non-complainants following adverse events. BMJ Qual Saf 15:17–22CrossRef
20.
Kaye AD, Vadivelu N, Ahuja N, Mitra S, Silasi D, Urman RD (2013) Anesthetic considerations in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. Ochsner J 13:517–524PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Campos J, Ueda K (2014) Update on anesthetic complications of robotic thoracic surgery. Miner Anestesiol 80:83–88
22.
Young RS, O’Regan DJ (2010) Cardiac surgical theatre traffic: time for traffic calming measures? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 10:526–529PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ofek E, Pizov R, Bitterman N (2006) From a radial operating theatre to a self-contained operating table. Anaesthesia 61:548–552PubMedCrossRef
24.
Brogmus G, Leone W, Butler L, Hernandez E (2007) Best practices in OR suite layout and equipment choices to reduce slips, trips, and falls. AORN J 86:384–394; quiz 395–388
25.
Ahmad N, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Sharif M, Allers JC, Hinata N, Ahmad B, Kozlowski JD, Hashmi Z, Bisantz A (2016) Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int 118:132–139PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Yule S, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Mitchell A, Rowley D, Paterson-Brown S (2008) Debriefing surgeons on non-technical skills (NOTSS). Cogn Technol Work 10:265–274
27.
Russ S, Rout S, Sevdalis N, Moorthy K, Darzi A, Vincent C (2013) Do safety checklists improve teamwork and communication in the operating room? A systematic review. Ann Surg 258:856–871PubMedCrossRef
28.
Hales BM, Pronovost PJ (2006) The checklist—a tool for error management and performance improvement. J Crit Care 21:231–235PubMedCrossRef
29.
Collins JW, Dell’Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR (2018) The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training. Eur Urol Focus 4(5):674–676PubMedCrossRef
30.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J (2009) Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Ghezzi TL, Corleta OC (2016) 30 years of robotic surgery. World J Surg 40:2550–2557CrossRef
32.
33.
Jing J, Honey MLL (2016) Using a checklist in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy procedures. AORN J 104:145–152PubMedCrossRef
34.
McCarroll ML, Zullo MD, Roulette GD, Mendise TM, Ferris E, Zolton J, Andrews SJ, von Gruenigen VE (2015) Development and implementation results of an interactive computerized surgical checklist for robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. J Robot Surg 9:11–18PubMedCrossRef
35.
Salas E, Rosen MA, Weaver SJ, Held JD, Weissmuller JJ (2009) Guidelines for performance measurement in simulation-based training. Ergon Des 17:12–18
36.
37.
Ahmed K, Khan N, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2013) Development and content validation of a surgical safety checklist for operating theatres that use robotic technology. BJU Int 111:1161–1174PubMedCrossRef
38.
Allers JC, Hussein AA, Ahmad N, Cavuoto L, Wing JF, Hayes RM, Hinata N, Bisantz AM, Guru KA (2016) Evaluation and impact of workflow interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. Urology 92:33–37PubMedCrossRef
39.
Craven R, Franasiak J, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2013) Ergonomic deficits in robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: a need for intervention. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol 20:648–655CrossRef
40.
Dru CJ, Anger JT, Souders CP, Bresee C, Weigl M, Hallett E, Catchpole K (2017) Surgical flow disruptions during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 24:8814–8821PubMed
41.
Franasiak J, Craven R, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2014) Feasibility and acceptance of a robotic surgery ergonomic training program. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18(4):e2014.00166CrossRef
42.
Myklebust MV, Storheim H, Hartvik M, Dysvik E (2020) Anesthesia professionals’ perspectives of teamwork during robotic-assisted surgery. AORN J 111:87–96PubMedCrossRef
43.
Raheem S, Ahmed YE, Hussein AA, Johnson A, Cavuoto L, May P, Cole A, Wang D, Ahmad B, Hasasneh A (2018) Variability and interpretation of communication taxonomy during robot-assisted surgery: do we all speak the same language? BJU Int 122:99–105PubMedCrossRef
44.
Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Hindmarsh J, Pearman A, Jayne D, Gardner P, Gill A, Kotze A (2019) Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study. BMJ Open 9:e028635PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, Taylor A, Theoharis E, Eisenstein D (2016) Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 20:e2016.00026CrossRef
46.
Schuessler Z, Scott Stiles A, Mancuso P (2020) Perceptions and experiences of perioperative nurses and nurse anaesthetists in robotic-assisted surgery. J Clin Nurs 29:60–74PubMedCrossRef
47.
Sexton K, Johnson A, Gotsch A, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2018) Anticipation, teamwork and cognitive load: chasing efficiency during robot-assisted surgery. BMJ Qual Saf 27:148–154PubMedCrossRef
48.
Song JB, Vemana G, Mobley JM, Bhayani SB (2013) The second “time-out”: a surgical safety checklist for lengthy robotic surgeries. Patient Saf Surg 7:19PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Souders CP, Catchpole K, Hannemann A, Lyon R, Eilber KS, Bresee C, Cohen T, Weigl M, Anger JT (2019) Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons? Int Urogynecol J 30:2177–2182PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Higginbotham DJ, Sharif M, Kozlowski J, Ahmad B, O’Hara R, Wawrzyniak N, Guru K (2019) Are gestures worth a thousand words? Verbal and nonverbal communication during robot-assisted surgery. Appl Ergon 78:251–262PubMedCrossRef
51.
Tsafrir Z, Janosek-Albright K, Aoun J, Diaz-Insua M, Abd-El-Barr A-E-R, Schiff L, Talukdar S, Menon M, Munkarah A, Theoharis E (2020) The impact of a wireless audio system on communication in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a prospective controlled trial. PLoS ONE 15:e0220214PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Bos P, Broeders IAMJ (2019) Ergonomic assessment of the first assistant during robot-assisted surgery. J Robot Surg 13:283–288PubMedCrossRef
53.
Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Mertens AC, Ruurda JP, Broeders I (2018) Validation of ergonomic instructions in robot-assisted surgery simulator training. Surg Endosc 32:2533–2540PubMedCrossRef
54.
55.
Weber J, Catchpole K, Becker AJ, Schlenker B, Weigl M (2018) Effects of flow disruptions on mental workload and surgical performance in robotic-assisted surgery. World J Surg 42:3599–3607PubMedCrossRef
56.
Weigl M, Weber J, Hallett E, Pfandler M, Schlenker B, Becker A, Catchpole K (2018) Associations of intraoperative flow disruptions and operating room teamwork during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 114:105–113PubMedCrossRef
57.
Zattoni F, Guttilla A, Crestani A, De Gobbi A, Cattaneo F, Moschini M, Vianello F, Valotto C, Dal Moro F, Zattoni F (2015) The value of open conversion simulations during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications for robotic training curricula. J Endourol 29:1282–1288PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zattoni F, Morlacco A, Cattaneo F, Soligo M, Meggiato L, Modonutti D, Valotto C, Dal Moro F, Zattoni F (2017) Development of a surgical safety training program and checklist for conversion during robotic partial nephrectomies. Urology 109:38–43PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Work-system interventions in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review exploring the gap between challenges and solutions
verfasst von
Falisha Kanji
Ken Catchpole
Eunice Choi
Myrtede Alfred
Kate Cohen
Daniel Shouhed
Jennifer Anger
Tara Cohen
Publikationsdatum
04.01.2021
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08231-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2021

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2021 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

How high is too high? Extensive mediastinal dissection in patients with hiatal hernia repair

OriginalPaper

Positive consequences of splenectomy for patients with schistosomiasis-induced variceal bleeding

OriginalPaper

Endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomoses with lumen-apposing metal stents: predictors of technical success

SAGES Review Article

Is peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) more effective than pneumatic dilation and Heller myotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

SAGES Guidelines

SAGES guidelines for the use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for the treatment of achalasia

OriginalPaper

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

16.04.2024 | Infektiologie | Nachrichten

Kein Abstrich bei chronischen Wunden ohne Entzündungszeichen!

10.04.2024 | Postoperative Schmerztherapie | Nachrichten

Chronische Schmerzen nach Op. oft mit neuropathischer Komponente

10.04.2024 | Narbenhernie | Nachrichten

Deutlich weniger Narbenhernien mit der Small-Bites-Technik
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.