• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Surgical Endoscopy >Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.
【24h】

Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.

机译：与腹腔镜手术相比，在FLS模型上进行机器人缝合具有结构合理性，对身体的要求较低，并且受到更多外科医师的青睐。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BACKGROUND: The value of robotic assistance for intracorporeal suturing is not well defined. We compared robotic suturing with laparoscopic suturing on the FLS model with a large cohort of surgeons. METHODS: Attendees (n=117) at the SAGES 2006 Learning Center robotic station placed intracorporeal sutures on the FLS box-trainer model using conventional laparoscopic instruments and the da Vinci(R) robot. Participant performance was recorded using a validated objective scoring system, and a questionnaire regarding demographics, task workload, and suturing modality preference was completed. Construct validity for both tasks was assessed by comparing the performance scores of subjects with various levels of experience. A validated questionnaire was used for workload measurement. RESULTS: Of the participants, 84% had prior laparoscopic and 10% prior robotic suturing experience. Within the allotted time, 83% of participants completed the suturing task laparoscopically and 72% with the robot. Construct validity was demonstrated for both simulated tasks according to the participants' advanced laparoscopic experience, laparoscopic suturing experience, and self-reported laparoscopic suturing ability (p<0.001 for all) and according to prior robotic experience, robotic suturing experience, and self-reported robotic suturing ability (p<0.001 for all), respectively. While participants achieved higher suturing scores with standard laparoscopy compared with the robot (84+/-75 vs. 56+/-63, respectively; p<0.001), they found the laparoscopic task more physically demanding (NASA score 13+/-5 vs. 10+/-5, respectively; p<0.001) and favored the robot as their method of choice for intracorporeal suturing (62 vs. 38%, respectively; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Construct validity was demonstrated for robotic suturing on the FLS model. Suturing scores were higher using standard laparoscopy likely as a result of the participants' greater experience with laparoscopic suturing versus robotic suturing. Robotic assistance decreases the physical demand of intracorporeal suturing compared with conventional laparoscopy and, in this study, was the preferred suturing method by most surgeons. Curricula for robotic suturing training need to be developed.
机译：背景：机器人辅助在体内缝合中的价值尚不明确。我们将大量的外科医生在FLS模型上比较了机器人缝合与腹腔镜缝合。方法：SAGES 2006学习中心机器人站的参与者（n = 117）使用常规的腹腔镜仪器和daVinci®机器人将体内缝合线置于FLS盒式训练器模型上。使用经过验证的客观评分系统记录参与者的表现，并完成有关人口统计学，任务工作量和缝合方式偏好的问卷调查。通过比较具有不同经验水平的受试者的表现得分，评估了这两项任务的构造效度。经过验证的问卷用于工作量测量。结果：在参与者中，有84％曾接受过腹腔镜手术，而10％曾接受过机器人缝合手术。在指定的时间内，83％的参与者通过腹腔镜完成了缝合任务，72％的参与者使用了机器人。根据参与者的高级腹腔镜经验，腹腔镜缝合经验和自我报告的腹腔镜缝合能力（对于所有患者，p <0.001）以及先前的机器人经验，机器人缝合经验和自我报告，证明了两种模拟任务的构造效度机器人缝合能力（所有p均<0.001）。尽管参与者通过标准腹腔镜检查获得的缝合评分高于机器人（分别为84 +/- 75与56 +/- 63; p <0.001），但他们发现腹腔镜检查对身体的要求更高（NASA评分为13 +/- 5）分别为10 +/- 5; p <0.001），并选择机器人作为他们进行体内缝合的首选方法（分别为62％vs. 38％; p <0.01）。结论：在FLS模型上证明了机器人缝合的构造有效性。使用标准腹腔镜进行缝合的评分较高，这可能是由于参与者在腹腔镜缝合与机器人缝合方面的丰富经验所致。与传统的腹腔镜检查相比，机器人辅助减少了体内缝合的物理需求，在这项研究中，机器人辅助是大多数外科医生首选的缝合方法。需要开发用于机器人缝合培训的课程。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号