Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp 773–779 | Cite as

Instrument usage in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a prospective clinical trial

  • Lisa Stotz
  • Ralf Joukhadar
  • Amr Hamza
  • Fabinshy Thangarajah
  • David Bardens
  • Ingolf Juhasz-Böss
  • Erich-Franz Solomayer
  • Marc P. Radosa
  • Julia C. Radosa
General Gynecology
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate instrumental usage in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries and to develop key timesets of a laparoscopic operation, which allows categorization of the operation time into different sections.

Methods

In this prospective clinical observational study, frequency of instrument usage, time for instrument switches, and instrument utilization time were recorded in a standardized manner for laparoscopic surgeries in 103 endoscopic surgeries.

Results

A standard equipment (including atraumatic grasping forceps, irrigation and suction device, bipolar clamp, and laparoscopic scissors) was used for nearly all interventions. Bipolar clamps and scissors were changed most frequently. The tool used for the longest amount of time was the atraumatic grasping forceps. Laparoscopic instruments were switched 51 times per surgery (range 2–250 times). One instrument switch lasted for a median of 0.13 min (0.08–1.2 min). Median time for instrument switch for a single surgery added up to 6.83 min. Instrument switches required 10.5% of the overall operation time.

Conclusion

We analyzed the current instrument usage in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries. The results of our standardized investigation suggest ways to reduce the time required for surgery and provide starting points for the standardization of the work routine.

Keywords

Laparoscopy Endoscopy Gynecologic surgery Surgical instruments Operation time 

Notes

Author contributions

LS: project development, data collection, and manuscript writing. RJ: project development. AH: data collection, and study design. DB: data analysis. IJ-B: study design. E-FS: project development. MPR: study design. JR: project development, and manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declare that they have no conflict of interest

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standard of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Neis KJ, Brandner P, Wagner S (2006) Laparoskopische Operationsverfahren in der Gynäkologie. Gynäkologe 39:87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker S, Abele H, Brucker S, Fehm T, Gardanis K, Wallwiener D et al (2011) Laparoskopie - Endoskopie. In: Kreienberg R, Ludwig H (eds) 125 Jahre Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe - Werte-Wissen-Wandel. Springer Medizin, Berlin, pp 141–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cravello L, de Montgolfier R, D’Ercole C, Roger V, Blanc B (1997) Endoscopic surgery. The end of classic surgery? J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 75:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wattiez A, Cohen SB, Selvaggi L (2002) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:417–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juhasz-Böss I, Haggag H, Baum S, Kerl S, Rody A, Solomayer E et al (2012) Laparoscopic and laparotomic approaches for endometrial cancer treatment: a comprehensive review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:167–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richardson R, Bournas N, Magos A (1995) Is laparoscopic hysterectomy a waste of time? Lancet 345(8941):36–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr L, Garry R (2005) Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330:1478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kunde D, Welch C (2003) Ultracision in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol 23:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ortega J, Sala C, Flor B, Liedo S (2004) Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Ultracision harmonic scalpel in thyroid surgery: an analysis of 200 cases in a randomized trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14:9–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hessler PA (2008) Vergleichende Untersuchung zur Effektivität verschiedener instrumenteller Operationstechniken bei der totalen laparoskopischen Hysterektomie (TLH). Geburtsh Frauenheilk 68:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radosa JC, Radosa CG, Mavrova R, Wagenpfeil S, Hamza A, Joukhadar R et al (2016) Postoperative quality of life and sexual function in premenopausal women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy for symptomatic fibroids: a prospective observational cohort study. PLoS One 11(11):e0166659CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radosa JC, Radosa MP, Mavorva R, Rudy A, Juhasz-Böss I, Bardens D et al (2013) Five minutes of extended assisted ventilation with an open umbilical trocar valve significantly reduces postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eur J Obstes Gynecol Reprod Biol 171:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radosa JC, Meyber-Solomayer G, Kastle C, Radosa CG, Mavrova R, Gräber S et al (2014) Influences of different hysterectomy techniques on patients’ postoperative sexual function and quality of life. J Sex Med 11:2342–2350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geryane MH, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (2004) Time-motion analysis of operation theater time use during laparoscopic cholecystectomy by surgical specialist residents. Surg Endosc 18:1597–1600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kranzfelder M, Schneider A, Fiolka A, Schwan E, Gillen S, Wilhelm D et al (2013) Real-time instrument detection in minimally invasive surgery using radiofrequency identification technology. J Surg Res 185:704–710CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brucker S, Rothmund R, Krämer B, Neis F, Schönfisch B, Zubke W et al (2013) Cervical detachment using monopolar SupraLoop™ electrode versus monopolar needle in laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH): an interventional, comparative cohort study. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 73:1121–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Emam TA, Cuschieri A (2003) How safe is high-power ultrasonic dissection? Ann Surg 237:186–191PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seehofer D, Mogl M, Boas-Knoop S, Unger J, Schirmeier A, Chopra S et al (2012) Safety and efficacy of new integrated bipolar and ultrasonic scissors compared to conventional laparoscopic 5-mm sealing and cutting instruments. Surg Endosc 26:2541–2549CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Macario A (2010) What does one minute of operating room time cost? J Clin Anesth 22:233–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Stotz
    • 1
  • Ralf Joukhadar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amr Hamza
    • 1
  • Fabinshy Thangarajah
    • 4
  • David Bardens
    • 1
  • Ingolf Juhasz-Böss
    • 1
  • Erich-Franz Solomayer
    • 1
  • Marc P. Radosa
    • 3
  • Julia C. Radosa
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinic for Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive MedicineSaarland University Medical CenterHomburgGermany
  2. 2.Clinic for Gynecology and PolyclinicWürzburg University Medical CenterWürzburgGermany
  3. 3.Department for GynecologyDiaconia Clinic KasselKasselGermany
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Cologne, Medical FacultyCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations