| Title |
Robotic Surgery Improves Technical Performance and Enhances Prefrontal Activation During High Temporal Demand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10439-018-2049-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Harsimrat Singh, Hemel N. Modi, Samriddha Ranjan, James W. R. Dilley, Dimitrios Airantzis, Guang-Zhong Yang, Ara Darzi, Daniel R. Leff |
| Abstract |
Robotic surgery may improve technical performance and reduce mental demands compared to laparoscopic surgery. However, no studies have directly compared the impact of robotic and laparoscopic techniques on surgeons' brain function. This study aimed to assess the effect of the operative platform (robotic surgery or conventional laparoscopy) on prefrontal cortical activation during a suturing task performed under temporal demand. Eight surgeons (mean age ± SD = 34.5 ± 2.9 years, male:female ratio = 7:1) performed an intracorporeal suturing task in a self-paced manner and under a 2 min time restriction using conventional laparoscopic and robotic techniques. Prefrontal activation was assessed using near-infrared spectroscopy, subjective workload was captured using SURG-TLX questionnaires, and a continuous heart rate monitor measured systemic stress responses. Task progression scores (au), error scores (au), leak volumes (mL) and knot tensile strengths (N) provided objective assessment of technical performance. Under time pressure, robotic suturing led to improved technical performance (median task progression score: laparoscopic suturing = 4.5 vs. robotic suturing = 5.0; z = - 2.107, p = 0.035; median error score: laparoscopic suturing = 3.0 mm vs. robotic suturing = 2.1 mm; z = - 2.488, p = 0.013). Compared to laparoscopic suturing, greater prefrontal activation was identified in seven channels located primarily in lateral prefrontal regions. These results suggest that robotic surgery improves performance during high workload conditions and is associated with enhanced activation in regions of attention, concentration and task engagement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 64% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 25% |
| Engineering | 8 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 32% |