Could trainees’ finger placement at the surgeon’s console have any effect on the overall outcomes of robotic surgery specifically in radical prostatectomy?

Zachary M. Connelly, Matthew Moss, Tomas Paneque, Coleman McFerrin, Kevin Morgan, Mohamed Ahmed, Nazih Khater
{"title":"Could trainees’ finger placement at the surgeon’s console have any effect on the overall outcomes of robotic surgery specifically in radical prostatectomy?","authors":"Zachary M. Connelly, Matthew Moss, Tomas Paneque, Coleman McFerrin, Kevin Morgan, Mohamed Ahmed, Nazih Khater","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Robotic surgery for localized prostate cancer offers a greater range of motion attributed to the EndoWrist instruments. Postoperative outcomes are linked to the quality of vesico-urethral anastomosis. Trainees frequently complain of suturing difficulty in a back-handed fashion. We aimed to analyze wrist motion using the DaVinci simulator. We hypothesized that using the thumb and index finger would allow superior surgical proficiency when compared to the middle finger.\nMethods: After institutional review board approval, we recruited 42 medical students in one academic medical center. Students were randomly assigned to start with their thumb and index finger (1&2) or thumb and middle finger (1&3). Three standardized modules were used with nine metrics calculated, including: score, total time, economy of motion, efficiency score, collisions, inaccurate puncture, wound approximation, out of view, and penalty subtotal. Statistical analysis of the metrics was calculated using SPSS.\nResults: Three metrics were found to have differences between the finger placement of 1&3 compared to 1&2. The number of collisions, wound approximation, and penalty score where 1&3 were used had a lower score in each. The number of collisions was 5.7 less in the 1&3 finger placement (p=0.046). This metric was found to have statistically significant differences between finger placement where 1&3 had a lower score compared to 1&2. The wound approximation score was 0.2 points lower when using the 1&3 placement (p=0.075). Lastly, the penalty assigned was 6.5 points lower when using 1&3 (p=0.069).\nConclusions: Although finger placement did not affect the overall score of the completed simulation, instrument collisions and unnecessary wound complications may lead to adverse outcomes when using 1&2 despite offering a wider range of motion. This may be due to decreased comfort in hand position. Trainees may be able to improve the effectiveness of their vesico-urethral anastomosis during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.","PeriodicalId":38001,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic surgery for localized prostate cancer offers a greater range of motion attributed to the EndoWrist instruments. Postoperative outcomes are linked to the quality of vesico-urethral anastomosis. Trainees frequently complain of suturing difficulty in a back-handed fashion. We aimed to analyze wrist motion using the DaVinci simulator. We hypothesized that using the thumb and index finger would allow superior surgical proficiency when compared to the middle finger. Methods: After institutional review board approval, we recruited 42 medical students in one academic medical center. Students were randomly assigned to start with their thumb and index finger (1&2) or thumb and middle finger (1&3). Three standardized modules were used with nine metrics calculated, including: score, total time, economy of motion, efficiency score, collisions, inaccurate puncture, wound approximation, out of view, and penalty subtotal. Statistical analysis of the metrics was calculated using SPSS. Results: Three metrics were found to have differences between the finger placement of 1&3 compared to 1&2. The number of collisions, wound approximation, and penalty score where 1&3 were used had a lower score in each. The number of collisions was 5.7 less in the 1&3 finger placement (p=0.046). This metric was found to have statistically significant differences between finger placement where 1&3 had a lower score compared to 1&2. The wound approximation score was 0.2 points lower when using the 1&3 placement (p=0.075). Lastly, the penalty assigned was 6.5 points lower when using 1&3 (p=0.069). Conclusions: Although finger placement did not affect the overall score of the completed simulation, instrument collisions and unnecessary wound complications may lead to adverse outcomes when using 1&2 despite offering a wider range of motion. This may be due to decreased comfort in hand position. Trainees may be able to improve the effectiveness of their vesico-urethral anastomosis during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
受训者在外科医生操作台上的手指位置是否会影响机器人手术(尤其是根治性前列腺切除术)的整体效果?
简介采用机器人手术治疗局部前列腺癌时,EndoWrist器械可提供更大的活动范围。术后效果与膀胱尿道吻合术的质量有关。受训者经常抱怨背手缝合困难。我们的目的是使用 DaVinci 模拟器分析手腕的运动。我们假设,与使用中指相比,使用拇指和食指可以提高手术熟练度:经过机构审查委员会批准后,我们在一家学术医学中心招募了 42 名医学生。学生被随机分配从拇指和食指(1&2)或拇指和中指(1&3)开始。我们使用了三个标准化模块,并计算了九项指标,包括:得分、总时间、动作经济性、效率得分、碰撞、穿刺不准确、伤口逼近、视野外和罚球小计。使用 SPSS 对指标进行了统计分析:结果:与 1&2 相比,1&3 的手指摆放位置有三项指标存在差异。在碰撞次数、伤口近似度和罚分方面,使用 1&3 的得分都较低。使用 1&3 摆放手指时,碰撞次数减少了 5.7 次(P=0.046)。这一指标在不同手指位置之间存在显著的统计学差异,1&3 的得分低于 1&2。使用 1&3 摆放方式时,伤口逼近得分低 0.2 分(p=0.075)。最后,使用 1&3 时所分配的罚分低 6.5 分(P=0.069):尽管手指放置位置并不影响模拟完成的总分,但使用 1&2 时,尽管活动范围更大,但器械碰撞和不必要的伤口并发症可能会导致不良后果。这可能是由于手部位置的舒适度降低所致。在机器人辅助的根治性前列腺切除术中,受训者或许能提高膀胱尿道吻合术的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Published by the Canadian Urological Association, the Canadian Urological Association Journal (CUAJ) released its first issue in March 2007, and was published four times that year under the guidance of founding editor (Editor Emeritus as of 2012), Dr. Laurence H. Klotz. In 2008, CUAJ became a bimonthly publication. As of 2013, articles have been published monthly, alternating between print and online-only versions (print issues are available in February, April, June, August, October, and December; online-only issues are produced in January, March, May, July, September, and November). In 2017, the journal launched an ahead-of-print publishing strategy, in which accepted manuscripts are published electronically on our website and cited on PubMed ahead of their official issue-based publication date. By significantly shortening the time to article availability, we offer our readers more flexibility in the way they engage with our content: as a continuous stream, or in a monthly “package,” or both. CUAJ covers a broad range of urological topics — oncology, pediatrics, transplantation, endourology, female urology, infertility, and more. We take pride in showcasing the work of some of Canada’s top investigators and providing our readers with the latest relevant evidence-based research, and on being the primary repository for major guidelines and other important practice recommendations. Our long-term vision is to become an essential destination for urology-based research, education, and advocacy for both physicians and patients, and to act as a springboard for discussions within the urologic community.
期刊最新文献
Safety and efficacy of ultrasound-assisted bedside ureteric stent placement 2024 Canadian Urological Association endorsement of an expert report: Kidney involvement in tuberous sclerosis complex Sacral neuromodulation in pediatric refractory bladder and bowel dysfunction Fostering the continued growth of our association On vacation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1