Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 274, Issue 9, pp 3407–3416 | Cite as

The application of surgical procedure manager (SPM): first experience with FESS

  • Katharina FeigeEmail author
  • Iris Gollnick
  • Pia Schmitz
  • Gero Strauss
Rhinology

Abstract

In our hypothesis, the newly developed program SPM (surgical procedure manager) will ensure successful standardization and efficiency of the FESS (functional endoscopic sinus surgery) and therefore make a decisive contribution in terms of economization and improvement of intraoperative quality. Between 27th March 2015 and 8th October 2015, data from 259 FESS procedures were collected using the SPM. The study took place at the surgical desk, an operating room in the ACQUA clinic in Leipzig, Germany. 233 FESS (90%) of the total FESS (n = 259, 100%) were conducted entirely with SPM. 26 SPM terminations (10%) of 259 FESS remain, which are classified as actual SPM terminations—when the surgeon intentionally stops the SPM. The maximum time slot decreased clearly from 1 h 39 min (period A) to 1 h 10 min (period B). A time reduction can also be seen with the minimum duration of 13.5 min compared to 11 min. The variability of the time slot also decreases since the standard deviation is reduced by 4.5 min. On the basis of available recordings it can be postulated that the application of SPM is suitable for standardization for FESS. Standardization by means of SPM and minimal development can be recognized over a period of time. The SPM makes it possible to transfer the general advantages of mechanization on a concrete FESS and do not influence the medical processes nor even restrict the medical freedom. The users are still entirely free in the implementation of the respective procedure.

Keywords

FESS SPM Surgical procedure manager Workflow surgery Endoscopic surgery 

Abbreviations

CRS

Chronic rhinosinusitis

DVT

Digital volume tomography, also known as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)

ENT

Ear nose and throat

EXH

Exceptional handling

FESS

Functional endoscopic sinus surgery

OIT

Onboard information terminal

PPN

Procedure point navigation

RGH

Regular handling

SMGS

Surgical management and guidance system

SOH

Surgical operation handbook

SOP

Standard operating procedure

SP-c

Conventional septoplasty

SPI

Surgical process institute

SPM

Surgical procedure manager

TOS

Technical officer of surgery

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors of this study declare that they have no conflict of interest

Financial disclosure

No financial disclosure.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Recommended link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBKH_NlEjm4 (German language).

References

  1. 1.
    Köcher R (2016) MLP Gesundheitsreport 2016. Mlp. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goepfert A (2016) Strukturierte patientenzentrierte Medizin durch Produktorientierung. In: Lohmann H, Kehrein I, Rippmann K (eds) Markenmedizin für informierte Patienten: Strukturierte Behandlungsabläufe auf digitalem Workflow. medhochzwei Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg, pp 25–29Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neumuth T, Jannin P, Schlomberg J, Meixensberger J, Wiedemann P, Burgert O (2011) Analysis of surgical intervention populations using generic surgical process models. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6(1):59–71. doi: 10.1007/s11548-010-0475-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strauss G, Koulechov K, Hofer M, Dittrich E, Grunert R, Moeckel H et al (2007) The navigation-controlled drill in temporal bone surgery: a feasibility study. Laryngoscope 117(3):434–441. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31802c93a1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green B, Parry D, Oeppen RS, Plint S, Dale T, Brennan PA (2016) Situational awareness—what it means for clinicians, its recognition and importance in patient safety. Oral Dis. doi: 10.1111/odi.12547 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Messerklinger W (1970) Endoscopy of the nose. Monatsschrift für Ohrenheilkunde und Laryngo-Rhinologie 104(10):451–456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Statistisches Bundesamt, Zweigstelle Bonn. Krankenhausstatistik—Diagnosedaten der Patienten und Patientinnen in Krankenhäusern. DRC statistics from 2010 to 2014: Operationen und Prozeduren der vollstationären Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern, Ausführliche Darstellung. http://www.gbe-bund.de. Accessed 6 June 2016
  8. 8.
    Oeken J, Bootz F (2004) Severe complications after endonasal nasal sinus surgery An unresolved problem. HNO 52(6):549–553. doi: 10.1007/s00106-003-0861-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klimek L, Mosges R (1998) Computer-assisted surgery in the ENT specialty. Developments and experiences from the first decade. Laryngo Rhino Otol 77(5):275–282. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-996974 (English Abstract, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t, Review) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oeken J, Törpel J (2008) The influence of navigation on endoscopic sinus surgery. HNO 56(2):151–157. doi: 10.1007/s00106-007-1580-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I, Baroody F et al (2012) European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. Rhinology 50(SUPPL. 23):4–305. doi: 10.4193/Rhino12.000 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hopkins C, Browne JP, Slack R, Lund V, Brown P (2007) The Lund–Mackay staging system for chronic rhinosinusitis: how is it used and what does it predict? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137(4):555–561. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bundesverband für Ambulantes Operieren e.V. (2016). http://www.operieren.de/content/e3224/e10/e1071/e1076/e1098/. Accessed 9 May 2016
  14. 14.
    Stammberger H, Posawetz W (1990) Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol 247(2):63–76. doi: 10.1007/BF00183169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simmen D, Jones N (2005) Chirurgie der Nasennebenhöhlen und der vorderen Schädelbasis. Georg Thieme Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strauss G, Gollnick I, Neumuth T, Meixenberger J, Lueth TC (2013) The ‘Surgical Deck’: a new generation of integrated operational rooms for ENT. Laryngorhinootologie 92(2):102–112. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1321849 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manzey D, Luz M, Mueller S, Dietz A, Meixensberger J, Strauss G (2011) Automation in surgery: the impact of navigated-control assistance on performance, workload, situation awareness, and acquisition of surgical skills. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 53(6):584–599. doi: 10.1177/0018720811426141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strauss G, Koulechov K, Richter R, Dietz A, Trantakis C, Lüth T (2005) Navigated control in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 1(3):31–41. doi: 10.1002/rcs.25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strauss G, Limpert E, Strauss M, Hofer M, Dittrich E, Nowatschin S, Lüth T (2009) Evaluation of a daily used navigation system for FESS. Laryngorhinootologie 88(12):776–781. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1237352 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strauß G, Schaller S, Zaminer B, Heininger S, Hofer M, Manzey D et al (2011) Clinical experiences with an automatic collision warning system. HNO 59(5):470–479. doi: 10.1007/s00106-010-2237-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luz M, Manzey D, Modemann S, Strauss G (2015) Less is sometimes more: a comparison of distance-control and navigated-control concepts of image-guided navigation support for surgeons. Ergonomics 58(3):383–393. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.970588 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trojandt G (2016) Spitzenqualität garantiert an jedem Tag. In: Lohmann H, Kehrein I, Rippmann K (eds) Markenmedizin für informierte Patienten: Strukturierte Behandlungsabläufe auf digitalem Workflow. medhochzwei Verlag GmbH, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sugino T, Kawahira H, Nakamura R (2014) Surgical task analysis of simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a navigation system. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9(5):825–836. doi: 10.1007/s11548-013-0974-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KOPFZENTRUM GruppeLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.International Reference and Development Centre for Surgical Technology (IRDC GmbH)LeipzigGermany
  3. 3.ACQUA Clinic LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations