Ergonomic port placement in robotic colorectal surgery.

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine how spacing between ports and alignment of ports (oblique or vertical) influences manipulation angles in robotic colorectal surgery. METHOD: Abdominal CT scans of 10 consecutive robotic right hemicolectomy and 10 consecutive robotic high anterior resection patients were analysed. The manipulation angles were calculated using fixed points on the preoperative abdominal coronal CT scan. Port placements were marked on the CT scan. The fixed points used to measure the manipulation angles were from the most lateral part of the caecum, hepatic flexure, splenic flexure, the descending colon/sigmoid colon junction and the sigmoid colon/rectum junction. RESULTS: For right hemicolectomy and high anterior resection surgery, a port spacing of 8 cm compared with 6 cm resulted in greater manipulation angles. With 6-cm port spacing, wider manipulation angles were not achieved with vertical port alignment compared with oblique alignment except for dissection at the splenic flexure. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest manipulation angles were achieved with the oblique 8-cm port spacing, which should be used in most cases.

Cognitive ergonomics and robotic surgery.

Cognitive ergonomics refer to mental resources and is associated with memory, sensory motor response, and perception. Cognitive workload (CWL) involves use of working memory (mental strain and effort) to complete a task. The three types of cognitive loads have been divided into intrinsic (dependent on complexity and expertise), extraneous (the presentation of tasks) and germane (the learning process) components. The effect of robotic surgery on CWL is complex because the postural, visualisation, and manipulation ergonomic benefits for the surgeon may be offset by the disadvantages associated with team separation and reduced situation awareness. Physical fatigue and workflow disruptions have a negative impact on CWL. Intraoperative CWL can be measured subjectively post hoc with the use of self-reported instruments or objectively with real-time physiological response metrics. Cognitive training can play a crucial role in the process of skill acquisition during the three stages of motor learning: from cognitive to integrative and then to autonomous. Mentorship, technical practice and watching videos are the most common traditional cognitive training methods in surgery. Cognitive training can also occur with computer-based cognitive simulation, mental rehearsal, and cognitive task analysis. Assessment of cognitive skills may offer a more effective way to differentiate robotic expertise level than automated performance (tool-based) metrics.

Ergonomic interventions to reduce upper limb musculoskeletal pain during robotic surgery: a narrative review.

There is a high prevalence of upper limb musculoskeletal pain among robotic surgeons. Poor upper limb ergonomic positioning during robotic surgery occurs when the shoulders are abducted, and the elbows are lifted off the console armrest. The validated rapid upper limb assessment can quantify ergonomic efficacy. Surface electromyography and hand dynamometer assessment of strength are the most common methods to assess muscle fatigue. A literature review was performed to find evidence of ergonomic interventions which reduce upper limb musculoskeletal pain during robotic surgery. There is a paucity of studies which have reported on this topic. In other occupations, there is strong evidence for the use of resistance training to prevent upper extremity pain. Use of forearm compression sleeves, stretching, and massage may help reduce forearm fatigue. Microbreaks with targeted stretching, active ergonomic training, improved use of armrest, and optimal hand controller design have been shown to reduce upper limb musculoskeletal pain. Future studies should assess which interventions are beneficial in reducing surgeon upper limb pain during robotic surgery.

Ergonomic hand positioning overcomes visual perception mismatch in nonsimulated robotic colorectal surgery.

The aim of the study was to compare the internal instrument and external surgeon hand positions to determine whether visual perception mismatch (VPM) is a factor during robotic colorectal surgery. Continuous video footage of 24 consecutive robotic colorectal surgery cases were analysed concurrently with sagittal video recordings of surgeon hand positions. Separated sagittal hand positions would indicate nonergonomic positioning without clutching of the robotic controls, either matching the on-screen up/down instrument tip positions (no VPM) or in the opposite direction (true VPM). Variables (30-min surgery time blocks, anatomic target, and task performed), which resulted in hand separation or VPM, were analysed. Operating with the presence of VPM for more than one duration occurred 51 times and nonergonomic sagittal hand positioning occurred 22 times. For an experienced robotic surgeon, ergonomic positioning of the hands is favoured over adjustment for VPM despite the potential higher mental workload.

Automated performance metrics, learning curve and robotic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of Automated Performance Metrics (APMs) in assessing the learning curve. METHODS: A retrospective review of 85 consecutive patients who underwent total robotic colorectal surgery at a single institution between August 2020 and October 2022 was performed. Patient demographics, operation type, and APMs were collected and analysed. Cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to construct learning curves of surgeon console time (SCT), use of the fourth arm, clutch activation, instrument off screen (number and duration), and cut electrocautery activation. RESULTS: Two phases with 50 and 35 cases were identified from the CUSUM graph for SCT. The SCT was significantly different between the two phases (176 and 251 min, p < 0.002). After adjustment for SCT, the APMs were not significantly different between the two phases. CONCLUSIONS: Most APMs do not offer additional learning curve information when compared with SCT analysis alone.

Workflow disruptions in robot-assisted surgery.

Surgical flow disruptions are unexpected deviations from the natural progression which can potentially compromise the safety of the operation. Separation of the surgeon from the patient and team members is the main contributor for flow disruptions (FDs) in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). FDs have been categorised as communication, coordination, surgeon task considerations, training, equipment/ technology, external factors, instrument changes, and environmental factors. There may be an association between FDs and task error rate. Intervention to counter FDs include training, operating room adjustments, checklists, teamwork, communication improvement, ergonomics, technology, guidelines, workflow optimisation, and team briefing. Future studies should focus on identifying the significant disruptive FDs and the impact of interventions on surgical flow during RAS.

Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery.

Stereopsis may be an advantage of robotic surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Other ergonomic factors relating to visualisation include stereo-acuity, vergence-accommodation mismatch, visual-perception mismatch, visual-vestibular mismatch, visuospatial ability, visual fatigue, and visual feedback to compensate for lack of haptic feedback. Visual fatigue symptoms may be related to dry eye or accommodative/binocular vision stress. Digital eye strain can be measured by questionnaires and objective tests. Management options include treatment of dry eye, correction of refractive error, and management of accommodation and vergence anomalies. Experienced robotic surgeons can use visual cues like tissue deformation and surgical tool information as surrogates for haptic feedback.

Improving ergonomics for the bedside assistant in robotic colorectal surgery.

The aim of the study was to document when significant bedside assistant (BA) and robotic arm collisions occurred during robotic colorectal surgery (RCS). An observational study of 10 consecutive RCS cases, from May 2022 to September 2022, was performed. Situations when there was significant collision between BA arm and robotic arm (to cause inadvertent movement of the assistant instrument) were documented. The assistant port was randomly placed to the right or the left side of the camera port. Situations which led to detrimental BA ergonomics include dissection at the most peripheral working field, proximity of the target (mesenteric vessels), small bowel retraction, placement of the assistant port in the medial position (on the left side of the camera port), during intra-corporeal suturing and robotic stapler use. The robotic console surgeon can predictably identify and avoid situations when injury to the BA may occur.

Factors affecting upper limb ergonomics in robotic colorectal surgery.

The aim of the study was to examine the factors which may influence suboptimal ergonomic surgeon hand positioning during robotic colorectal surgery (RCS). An observational study of 11 consecutive RCS cases from June 2022 to August 2022 was performed. Continuous video footage of RCS cases was analysed concurrently with video recordings of surgeon's hand positions at the console. The outcome studied was the frequency with which either hand remained in a suboptimal ergonomic position outside the predetermined double box outlines, as marked on the surgeon's video, for >1 min. Situations which resulted in poor upper limb ergonomics were dissection in the peripheral operating field location, left-hand use, use of the stapler, dissection of the main mesenteric blood vessels, and multi-quadrant surgery. Being aware of situations when suboptimal ergonomic positions occur can allow surgeons to consciously compensate by using the clutch or pausing to take a rest break. What does this paper add to the literature?: The study is important because it is the first to look at factors which may influence poor upper limb ergonomics during non-simulated RCS. By recognizing these factors and compensating for them, it may improve surgeon ergonomics with resultant better performance.

Factors affecting the learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery.

Learning related to robotic colorectal surgery can be measured by surgical process (such as time or adequacy of resection) or patient outcome (such as morbidity or quality of life). Time based metrics are the most commonly used variables to assess the learning curve because of ease of analysis. With analysis of the learning curve, there are factors which need to be considered because they may have a direct impact on operative times or may be surrogate markers of clinical effectiveness (unrelated to times). Variables which may impact on operation time include surgery case mix, hybrid technique, laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery experience, robotic surgical simulator training, technology, operating room team, and case complexity. Multidimensional analysis can address multiple indicators of surgical performance and include variables such as conversion rate, complications, oncological outcome and functional outcome. Analysis of patient outcome and/or global assessment of robotic skills may be the most reliable methods to assess the learning curve.

The learning curve to attain surgical competency in robotic colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to assess the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) learning curve of an experienced surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective review of 117 consecutive patients who underwent total RCS at a single institution between October 2018 and July 2021 was performed. Patient demographics, surgery indications, operation type, intraoperative data, histopathology, morbidity and mortality, and length of stay were analysed. Cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to construct a learning curve of surgeon console and total operation times (SCT and TOT). RESULTS: There was no open conversion, positive resection margin and mortality in the study population. There were four Clavien-DIndo grade III complications and one local recurrence. The range for SCT was 18-855 min (mean 214, median 211) and TOT was 68-937 min (mean 302, median 291). The SCT CUSUM graph identified change in slope at cases 44 and 88, which divided the learning curve into three distinct phases. Patient demographics were similar through the three phases. There was proportionally more cancer cases performed in the first phase (P = 0.001). The mean SCT was significantly higher in Phase 2 when compared with Phases 1 and 3 (P = 0.03). The failure rate was similar through the three phases. There was a non-significant steady decline in LOS over the three phases, from 6.9 to 6.1 days. CONCLUSION: Experienced colorectal surgeons can perform robotic surgery safely, even on patients with high complexity early in the learning curve. Audit of patient outcome should be an important component of learning curve assessment.

Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics.

Improved ergonomics for the operating surgeon may be an advantage of robotic colorectal surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Postural advantages include seated position and freedom from the constraints of the sterile operating field. Manipulation benefits include articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom movement, elimination of fulcrum effect, tremor filtration, and scaling of movement. Potential ergonomic detriments of robotic surgery include lack of haptic feedback, visual, and mental strain from increased operating time and interruptions to workflow from crowding.

Slow-transit constipation: evaluation and treatment.

Slow-transit constipation is characterized by delay in transit of stool through the colon, caused by either myopathy or neuropathy. The severity of constipation is highly variable, but may be severe enough to result in complete cessation of spontaneous bowel motions. Diagnostic tests to assess colonic transit include radiopaque marker or radioisotope studies, and intraluminal tests (colonic and small bowel manometry). Most patients with functional constipation respond to laxatives, but a small proportion are resistant to this treatment. In some patients biofeedback is helpful although the mechanism by which this works is still uncertain. Other patients are resistant to all conservative modes of therapy and require surgical intervention. Extensive clinical and physiological preoperative assessment of patients with slow colonic transit is essential before considering surgery, including an assessment of small bowel motility and identification of coexistent obstructed defecation. The psychological state of the patient should always be taken into account. When surgery is indicated, subtotal colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis is the operation of choice. Segmental colonic resection has been reported in a few patients, but methods of identifying the affected segment need to be developed further. Less invasive and reversible surgical options include laparoscopic ileostomy, antegrade colonic enema and sacral nerve stimulation.

Sutureless intestinal plication.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions form between damaged mesothelial surfaces and can cause recurrent small bowel obstruction. Repeat laparotomies may be required in some cases, which can be associated with significant morbidities. METHODS: A technique is described for plication of the small bowel in an orderly manner with the use of two silicone indwelling urinary catheters. CONCLUSIONS: This plication technique, a modification of the Noble and Childs-Phillips operations, is effective, safe, quick and cost-effective.

Wound infusion with local anaesthesia after laparotomy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of a continuous local anaesthesia infusion after laparotomy may reduce opioid requirements and facilitate earlier return of bowel function, independent mobilization and hospital discharge. METHODS: We performed a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial on 55 patients who underwent laparotomy. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a continuous infusion of either 0.2% ropivacaine or normal saline into their midline abdominal wound at the fascial level. The end points of the study were: total opioid requirements at 24 and 48 h; time to first flatus, bowel movement and independent ambulation; length of hospital stay; complications; and daily mean patient-reported pain scores at rest and movement. RESULTS: The two treatment groups were well controlled for factors that influence analgesia requirements, including age, weight, length of wound incision and type of operation. Patients allocated to ropivacaine infusion used, on average, 32 mg less morphine at 48 h (95% confidence interval 7, 57; P= 0.01). This was highly statistically significant after adjusting for age, gender and type of operation (P= 0.0006). Ropivacaine infusion was associated with a significantly decreased time to independent mobilization (P= 0.02), time to first flatus (P= 0.02) and reduced post-operative ileus (2/28 versus 9/27, χ(2) = 5.89, P= 0.02). There was no significant effect of ropivacaine infusion on time to first bowel movement (P= 0.94) nor length of hospital stay (P= 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Local anaesthesia infusion at the fascial plane provides effective analgesia. This improves patient recovery through earlier return to bowel function and mobilization.