Optimizing integration of electrosurgical hand controls within a laparoscopic surgical tool.

Abstract In laparoscopic surgery, electrosurgical equipment is operated by means of one or more foot pedals positioned on the floor in front of the surgeon causing poor ergonomic posture and physical discomfort. The focus of this study was to ergonomically explore the integration of electrosurgical hand controls within the previously designed Intuitool™ laparoscopic surgical instrument to optimize functionality. Three different hand control designs (CDs) were implemented within the Intuitool™ and each CD contained the standard cutting and coagulation features, previously operated by foot pedals. This study used 26 right-handed participants, with no previous laparoscopic surgery experience. The participants completed simple tasks using all three CDs within a simulated abdomen. Electromyography (EMG) sensors and force sense resistors (FSRs) were utilized to measure muscle activity and button actuation force, respectively. A questionnaire was also utilized to measure comfort level of each CD. The results indicated that the close proximity of CD 1 generated greater actuation force for all tasks, was rated easier to use (P = 0.003) and was preferred more frequently by the participants (53.8%) compared to CD 2 and 3. As a result, CD 1 was determined to be an optimal ergonomic design for electrosurgical hand controls within the Intuitool™.

Assessment of electrosurgical hand controls integrated into a laparoscopic grasper.

The aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively determine the optimal ergonomic placement of novel electrosurgical hand controls integrated into a standard laparoscopic grasper to optimize functionality. This device will allow laparoscopic surgeons to hand-operate standard electrosurgical equipment, eliminating the use of electrosurgical foot pedals, which are prone to activation errors and cause uncomfortable body positions for the physician. Three hand control designs were evaluated by 26 participants during the performance of four basic inanimate laparoscopic electrosurgical tasks. Task completion time, actuation force, forearm electromyography (EMG) and user preference were evaluated for each hand control design. Task speed was controlled using a metronome to minimize subject variability, and resulted in no significant completion time differences between task types (P > 0.05). Hand control design 1 (CD 1) resulted in the ability to generate significantly greater actuation force for three of the four tasks (P < 0.05) with minimal forearm muscle activation. Additionally, CD 1 was rated significantly better for comfort and ease-of-use compared to the other two hand control designs (P < 0.05). As a result, CD 1 was determined to be an advantageous ergonomic design for the novel electrosurgical hand controls.

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery: comparison of surgical port performance in a surgical simulator with novices.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery is feasible, it poses many technical challenges not seen in conventional laparoscopy. Recent interest and widespread implementation of LESS stems from advancements in commercially available access port technology. Consequently, this study objectively compared the technical performance between conventional laparoscopic and LESS surgical ports in a modified Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) simulator. METHODS: The 24 novice participants in this study performed the FLS peg transfer task using two conventional laparoscopic 12-mm working ports, the SILS port, the TriPort access system, and the GelPOINT system with two standard length 5-mm graspers. Each participant completed the task using conventional laparoscopy first for familiarization, followed by each of the three LESS surgical ports in random order. Task completion time, errors, and subjective questionnaire ratings were used to compare conventional laparoscopy and the single-port devices. Congruent with FLS scoring procedures, task completion time and errors were used to compute a standardized task score for each port. RESULTS: The task score did not differ significantly between conventional laparoscopy and the single-port devices. Additionally, there were no task score differences between trials for either the SILS port or the GelPOINT system. There was a significant performance decrement starting with the TriPort versus starting with either the SILS port or the GelPOINT, which resulted in the lowest overall trial task score (p<0.05). Task completion difficulty and instrument maneuverability resulted in no significant differences between ports. Ease of use and overall rank were significant, with conventional laparoscopy rated as the easiest to use and the highest overall followed by the GelPOINT system. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the TriPort may be more challenging for novices to use in learning the LESS procedure than either the SILS port or the GelPOINT system. The GelPOINT system may offer the most consistent platform for LESS performance and novice skill acquisition.

Validated robotic laparoscopic surgical training in a virtual-reality environment.

BACKGROUND: A robotic virtual-reality (VR) simulator has been developed to improve robot-assisted training for laparoscopic surgery and to enhance surgical performance in laparoscopic skills. The simulated VR training environment provides an effective approach to evaluate and improve surgical performance. This study presents our findings of the VR training environment for robotic laparoscopy. METHODS: Eight volunteers performed two inanimate tasks in both the VR and the actual training environment. The tasks were bimanual carrying (BC) and needle passing (NP). For the BC task, the volunteers simultaneously transferred two plastic pieces in opposite directions five times consecutively. The same volunteers passed a surgical needle through six pairs of holes in the NP task. Both tasks require significant bimanual coordination that mimics actual laparoscopic skills. Data analysis included time to task completion, speed and distance traveled of the instrument tip, as well as range of motion of the subject's wrist and elbow of the right arm. Electromyography of the right wrist flexor and extensor were also analyzed. Paired t-tests and Pearson's r were used to explore the differences and correlations between the two environments. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the actual and the simulated VR environment with respect to the BC task, while there were significant differences in almost all dependent parameters for the NP task. Moderate to high correlations for most dependent parameters were revealed for both tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that the VR environment adequately simulated the BC task. The significant differences found for the NP task may be attributed to an oversimplification in the VR environment. However, they do point to the need for improvements in the complexity of our VR simulation. Further research work is needed to develop effective and reliable VR environments for robotic laparoscopic training.