Skip to main content

Analysis of Surgeons’ Muscle Activity During the Use of a Handheld Robotic Instrument in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess the surgeon’s performance and ergonomics during the use of a robotic-driven handheld laparoscopic instrument in intracorporeal suturing tasks as well as in digestive and urological laparoscopic procedures performed through single-site surgery, and comparing it with the use of conventional instruments. Seven right-handed experienced surgeons took part in this study. Four surgeons performed nine urethrovesical anastomoses on an ex vivo porcine model and three surgeons a partial nephrectomy and a sigmoidectomy on an in vivo animal model. Surgeons used both conventional laparoscopic instruments and the robotic instrument. Execution times, leakage pressure for the anastomosis, surgical complications and surgeons’ muscle activity were measured. Similar results in surgical performance and ergonomics were obtained using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the robotic instrument. Muscle activity of the biceps was significantly higher using the robotic instrument during both surgical procedures.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Xourafas, D., Tavakkoli, A., Clancy, T.E., Ashley, S.W.: Distal pancreatic resection for neuroendocrine tumors: is laparoscopic really better than open? J. Gastrointest. Surg. 19, 831–840 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Medeiros, L.R., Stein, A.T., Fachel, J., Garry, R., Furness, S.: Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 18, 387–399 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Delaney, C.P., Chang, E., Senagore, A.J., Broder, M.: Clinical outcomes and resource utilization associated with laparoscopic and open colectomy using a large national database. Ann. Surg. 247, 819–824 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Marks, J.H., Montenegro, G.A., Shields, M.V., Frenkel, J.L., Marks, G.J.: Single-port laparoscopic colorectal surgery shows equivalent or better outcomes to standard laparoscopic surgery: results of a 190-patient, 7-criterion case-match study. Surg. Endosc. 29, 1492–1499 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fan, X., Lin, T., Xu, K., Yin, Z., Huang, H., Dong, W., et al.: Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 62, 601–6012 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaouk, J.H., Autorino, R., Kim, F.J., Han, D.H., Lee, S.W., Yinghao, S., et al.: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: Worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur. Urol. 60, 998–1005 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rais-Bahrami, S., Moreira, D.M., Hillelsohn, J.H., George, A.K., Rane, A., Gross, A.J., et al.: Contemporary perspectives on laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urologic training and practice. J. Endourol. 27, 727–731 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Islam, A., Castellvi, A.O., Tesfay, S.T., Castellvi, A.D., Wright, A.S., Scott, D.J.: Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: a Society of American gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgeons learning center study. Surg. Endosc. 25, 2597–2603 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rassweiler, J.J.: Is LESS/NOTES really more? Eur. Urol. 59, 46–8; discussion 48–50 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Berguer, R., Forkey, D.L., Smith, W.D.: Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Endosc. 13, 466–468 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Morandeira-Rivas, A., Millán-Casas, L., Moreno-Sanz, C., Herrero-Bogajo, M.L., Tenías-Burillo, J.M., Giménez-Salillas, L.: Ergonomics in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: survey results. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 16, 2151–2159 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pérez-Duarte, F.J., Lucas-Hernández, M., Matos-Azevedo, A., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A., Díaz-Güemes, I., Sánchez-Margallo, F.M.: Objective analysis of surgeons’ ergonomy during laparoendoscopic single-site surgery through the use of surface electromyography and a motion capture data glove. Surg. Endosc. 28, 1314–1320 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pérez-Duarte, F.J., Sánchez-Margallo, F.M., Martín-Portugués, I.D.-G., Sánchez-Hurtado, M.A., Lucas-Hernández, M., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A., et al.: Ergonomic analysis of muscle activity in the forearm and back muscles during laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 23, 203–207 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bensignor, T., Morel, G., Reversat, D., Fuks, D., Gayet, B.: Evaluation of the effect of a laparoscopic robotized needle holder on ergonomics and skills. Surg. Endosc. 30, 446–454 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zapardiel, I., Hernandez, A., De Santiago, J.: The efficacy of robotic driven handheld instruments for the acquisition of basic laparoscopic suturing skills. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 186, 106–109 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sánchez-Margallo, F.M., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A.: Use of a novel robotic laparoscopic instrument with ergonomic design for urethrovesical anastomosis: analysis of muscular activity and posture. International Congress of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Bucharest, Romania (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hermens, H.J., Freriks, B., Merletti, R., Stegeman, D., Blok, J., Rau, G., et al.: SENIAM 8: European recommendation for surface electromyography. Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Iacoponi, S., Terán, M., De Santiago, J., Zapardiel, I.: Laparoscopic hysterectomy with a handheld robotic device in a case of uterine sarcoma. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 54, 84–85 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pérez-Lanzac, A., Rosety, J., Okhunov, Z., Soto, J., Garcia-Baquero, R., Ledo, M.J. et al.: Robot-assisted laparoendoscopic hybrid single-site radical prostatectomy: a novel technique using Kymerax. J. Endourol. 27, Part B, Videourology (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nikolov, M., Mekoula, S.T., Hauser, S., Planz, B.: First results comparing between hand-held robotic assisted prostatectomy and conventional radical endoscopic extraperitoneal prostatectomy (Kymerax, Terumo). 25th World Congress on Videourology. Sofia, Bulgaria (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the Government of Extremadura, Spain, and the European Social Fund (PO14034).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco M. Sánchez-Margallo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sánchez-Margallo, F.M., Sánchez-Margallo, J.A. (2017). Analysis of Surgeons’ Muscle Activity During the Use of a Handheld Robotic Instrument in Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery. In: Duffy, V., Lightner, N. (eds) Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 482. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41652-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41652-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41651-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41652-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics