Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to apply a human factors research approach to identify flow disruptions, deviations in the optimal course of care, in robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures with the ultimate goal of developing system interventions to improve the safety and efficiency of robotic surgery.

Methods

Twenty-four robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy procedures were observed for flow disruptions. Surgeries were divided into four phases: (1) patient arrival and induction of anesthesia; (2) port placement and robot docking; (3) console time; (4) undocking of robot, incision closure, and patient exiting the OR.

Results

Flow disruptions were observed at a rate of 10.9 ± 5.1 per hour. The most frequently observed flow disruptions involved training issues (2.8 ± 2.4 flow disruptions per hour), equipment (2.2 ± 1.6 flow disruptions per hour), and poor coordination (2.0 ± 1.3 flow disruptions per hour). The rate of flow disruptions was highest in phase 2 (19.2 ± 14.4 flow disruptions per hour). Cases with more experienced surgeons involved shorter console times by 1.5 h (95% CI: 0.1, 3.0, p = 0.033) and 1.8 fewer (95% CI: 1.2, 2.6, p = 0.001) flow disruptions per hour. Surgeries were 1 h shorter on average (95% CI: 0.1, 1.9, p = 0.034) in cases in which the patient was > 65 years old. Da Vinci S console times were 0.8 h longer (95% CI: 0.01, 1.5, p = 0.047) than Si.

Conclusions

Flow disruptions in robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy surgery occur about every 6 min. Flow disruption rates are highest during the most complex portions of the surgery. More experienced surgeons have lower flow disruption rates and operate more quickly.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309:689.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.

  3. Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, et al. Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Catchpole K, Mishra A, Handa A, et al. Teamwork and error in the operating room: analysis of skills and roles. Ann Surg. 2008;247:699.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nayyar R, Gupta NP. Critical appraisal of technical problems with robotic urological surgery. BJU Int. 2010;105:1710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiegmann DA, Eggman AA, Elbardissi AW, et al. Improving cardiac surgical care: a work systems approach. Appl Ergon. 2010;41:701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Catchpole K, Wiegmann D. Understanding safety and performance in the cardiac operating room: from ‘sharp end’ to ‘blunt end’. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT, et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(Suppl 1):i50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dru CJ, Anger JT, Souders CP, et al. Surgical flow disruptions during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2017;24:8814.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Parker SEH, Laviana AA, Wadhera RK, et al. Development and evaluation of an observational tool for assessing surgical flow disruptions and their impact on surgical performance. World J Surg. 2010;34:353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Catchpole KR, Giddings AE, de Leval MR, et al. Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. Ergonomics. 2006;49:567.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Catchpole KR, Giddings AE, Wilkinson M, et al. Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery. 2007;142:102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McCulloch P, Mishra A, Handa A, et al. The effects of aviation-style non-technical skills training on technical performance and outcome in the operating theatre. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18:109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mishra A, Catchpole K, Dale T, et al. The influence of non-technical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Catchpole K, Ley E, Wiegmann D, et al. A human factors subsystems approach to trauma care. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by National Institute of Biomedical Imaging & Biomedical Engineering Award R03EB017447 (Catchpole/Anger) and the UCLA Medical Student Training in Aging Research Program—the National Institute on Aging (T35AG026736), the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Lillian R. Gleitsman Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Colby P. Souders, Alex Hannemann, Ronit Lyon, Karyn S. Eilber, Catherine Bresee, Tara Cohen & Jennifer T. Anger

  2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Ken Catchpole

  3. Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Matthias Weigl

  4. Beverly Hills, USA

    Jennifer T. Anger

Authors
  1. Colby P. Souders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Catchpole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex Hannemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronit Lyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karyn S. Eilber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Catherine Bresee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tara Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthias Weigl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jennifer T. Anger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Institution at which work was performed: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Souders, C.P., Catchpole, K., Hannemann, A. et al. Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons?. Int Urogynecol J 30, 2177–2182 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03929-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03929-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation