Understanding the surgeon's behaviour during robot-assisted surgery: protocol for the qualitative Behav'Robot study

Clément Cormi, Guillaume Parpex, Camille Julio, Fiona Ecarnot, David Laplanche, Geoffrey Vannieuwenhuyse, Antoine Duclos, Stéphane Sanchez, Clément Cormi, Guillaume Parpex, Camille Julio, Fiona Ecarnot, David Laplanche, Geoffrey Vannieuwenhuyse, Antoine Duclos, Stéphane Sanchez

Abstract

Introduction: Robot-assisted surgery is spreading worldwide, accounting for more than 1.2 million procedures in 2019. Data are sparse in the literature regarding the surgeon's mechanisms that mediate risk-taking during a procedure, especially robot-assisted. This study aims to describe and understand the behaviour of the surgeons during robot-assisted surgery and the change in their behaviour with increasing experience in using the robot.

Methods and analysis: This is a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with surgeons who perform robot-assisted surgery. An interview guide comprising open questions will be used to ensure that the points to be discussed are systematically addressed during each interview (ie, (1) difference in behaviour and preparation of the surgeon between a standard procedure and a robot-assisted procedure; (2) the influence of proprioceptive modifications, gain in stability and cognitive biases, inherent in the use of a surgical robot and (3) the intrinsic effect of the learning curve on the behaviour of the surgeons. After transcription, interviews will be analysed with the help of NVivo software, using thematic analysis.

Ethics and dissemination: Since this project examines professional practices in the field of social and human sciences, ethics committee was not required in accordance with current French legislation (Decree no 2017-884, 9 May 2017). Consent from the surgeons is implied by the fact that the interviews are voluntary. Surgeons will nonetheless be informed that they are free to interrupt the interview at any time.Results will be presented in peer-reviewed national and international congresses and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication. The communication and publication of the results will be placed under the responsibility of the principal investigator and publications will be prepared in compliance with the ICMJE uniform requirements for manuscripts.

Trial registration number: NCT04869995.

Keywords: MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING; Protocols & guidelines; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; Quality in health care; SURGERY.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M. From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int 2011;108:1708–13. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10576.x
    1. Fiani B, Quadri SA, Farooqui M, et al. . Impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on health care quality and neurosurgical economics: a systemic review. Neurosurg Rev 2020;43:17–25. 10.1007/s10143-018-0971-z
    1. Howe RD, Matsuoka Y. Robotics for surgery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 1999;1:211–40. 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.1.1.211
    1. Smith JA, Jivraj J, Wong R, et al. . 30 years of neurosurgical robots: review and trends for manipulators and associated navigational systems. Ann Biomed Eng 2016;44:836–46. 10.1007/s10439-015-1475-4
    1. et alTroccaz J, Berkelman P, Cinquin P. Interactive robots for medical applications. In: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Doi K, eds. CARS 2002 Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2002: 175–80.
    1. Troccaz J, Dagnino G, Yang G-Z. Frontiers of medical robotics: from concept to systems to clinical translation. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2019;21:193–218. 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-060418-052502
    1. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, et al. . Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;285:57???66–66. 10.1097/00003086-199212000-00010
    1. Lavallee S, Troccaz J, Gaborit L. Image guided operating robot: a clinical application in stereotactic neurosurgery. Proceedings 1992 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. France: IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 1992: 618–24.
    1. Fiani B, Quadri SA, Ramakrishnan V, et al. . Retrospective review on accuracy: a pilot study of robotically guided Thoracolumbar/Sacral pedicle screws versus Fluoroscopy-Guided and computerized tomography Stealth-Guided screws. Cureus. 10.7759/cureus.1437
    1. Beasley RA. Medical robots: current systems and research directions. J Robot 2012;2012:1–14. 10.1155/2012/401613
    1. Intuitive Surgical, Inc . Annual report 2019, 2020. Available: [Accessed 22 Dec 2020].
    1. Rai BP, Bondad J, Vasdev N. Robot-assisted vs open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults: robot vs open cystectomy for bladder cancer. BJU Int 2020;125:765–79.
    1. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, et al. . Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev;2017. 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2
    1. Shi C, Gao Y, Yang Y, et al. . Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019;17:162. 10.1186/s12957-019-1702-9
    1. Restaino S, Mereu L, Finelli A, et al. . Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2020;14:687–94. 10.1007/s11701-020-01061-y
    1. Zhang L, Yuan Q, Xu Y, et al. . Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2020;15:e0240593. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240593
    1. Tejedor P, Sagias F, Flashman K, et al. . The use of robotic or laparoscopic stapler in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2020;14:829–33. 10.1007/s11701-020-01126-y
    1. Tan A, Ashrafian H, Scott AJ, et al. . Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4330–52. 10.1007/s00464-016-4752-x
    1. Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N, et al. . Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS One 2016;11:e0151470. 10.1371/journal.pone.0151470
    1. Gupta P, Schomburg J, Krishna S, et al. . Development of a classification scheme for examining adverse events associated with medical devices, specifically the DaVinci surgical system as reported in the FDA MAUDE database. J Endourol 2017;31:27–31. 10.1089/end.2016.0396
    1. Manoucheri E, Fuchs-Weizman N, Cohen SL, et al. . MAUDE: analysis of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21:592–5. 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.122
    1. Carpenter BT, Sundaram CP. Training the next generation of surgeons in robotic surgery. Robot Surg 2017;4:39–44. 10.2147/RSRR.S70552
    1. Rajih E, Tholomier C, Cormier B, et al. . Error reporting from the dA Vinci surgical system in robotic surgery: a Canadian Multispecialty experience at a single academic centre. Can Urol Assoc J 2017;11:197. 10.5489/cuaj.4116
    1. Ferrarese A, Pozzi G, Borghi F, et al. . Malfunctions of robotic system in surgery: role and responsibility of surgeon in legal point of view. Open Med 2016;11:286–91. 10.1515/med-2016-0055
    1. Ficko Z, Koo K, Hyams ES. High tech or high risk? An analysis of media reports about robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 2017;11:211–6. 10.1007/s11701-016-0647-z
    1. Randell R, Alvarado N, Honey S. Impact of robotic surgery on decision making: perspectives of surgical teams 2015;10.
    1. Cooper MA, Ibrahim A, Lyu H, et al. . Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual 2015;37:133–8. 10.1111/jhq.12036
    1. Hendra L, Hendra T, Parker SJ. Decision-Making in the emergency laparotomy: a mixed methodology study. World J Surg 2019;43:798–805. 10.1007/s00268-018-4849-6
    1. Leung A, Luu S, Regehr G, et al. . "First, do no harm": balancing competing priorities in surgical practice. Acad Med 2012;87:1368–74. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182677587
    1. Zilbert NR, Murnaghan ML, Gallinger S, et al. . Taking a chance or playing it safe: Reframing risk assessment within the surgeon's comfort zone. Ann Surg 2015;262:253–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001068
    1. Moulton C-anne, Regehr G, Lingard L, et al. . 'Slowing down when you should': initiators and influences of the transition from the routine to the effortful. J Gastrointest Surg 2010;14:1019–26. 10.1007/s11605-010-1178-y
    1. Moulton C-anne, Regehr G, Lingard L, et al. . Slowing down to stay out of trouble in the operating room: remaining attentive in automaticity. Acad Med 2010;85:1571–7. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f073dd
    1. Moulton C-anneE, Regehr G, Mylopoulos M, et al. . Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment. Acad Med 2007;82:S109–16. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181405a76
    1. Mello MM, Livingston EH. Managing the risks of concurrent surgeries. JAMA 2016;315:1563. 10.1001/jama.2016.2305
    1. de Montbrun S, Patel P, Mobilio MH, et al. . Am I cut out for this? transitioning from surgical trainee to attending. J Surg Educ 2018;75:606–12. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.09.034
    1. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Guru KA. Learning curves for urological procedures: a systematic review: learning curves for urological procedures. BJU Int 2014;114:617–29.
    1. Soomro NA, Hashimoto DA, Porteous AJ, et al. . Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery. BJS Open 2020;4:27–44. 10.1002/bjs5.50235
    1. Kassite I, Bejan-Angoulvant T, Lardy H, et al. . A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity. Surg Endosc 2019;33:353–65. 10.1007/s00464-018-6473-9
    1. Magistri P, Guerrini GP, Ballarin R, et al. . Improving outcomes defending patient safety: the learning journey in robotic liver resections. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:1–8. 10.1155/2019/1835085
    1. Tucker K, Staley S-A, Gehrig PA, et al. . Defining the learning curve for successful staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy for endometrial cancer among surgeons at an academic institution. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:346–51. 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000942
    1. Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd edn. SAGE Publications I, 2014.
    1. Morgan DL. Focus groups. In: Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P, eds. Approaches to qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003: 263–85.
    1. Smithson J. Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2000;3:103–19. 10.1080/136455700405172
    1. Ciria-Suarez L, Jiménez-Fonseca P, Palacín-Lois M, et al. . Ascertaining breast cancer patient experiences through a journey map: a qualitative study protocol. PLoS One;15:e0244355. 10.1371/journal.pone.0244355
    1. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2014.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Ecarnot F, Meunier-Beillard N, Seronde M-F, et al. . End-of-life situations in cardiology: a qualitative study of physicians' and nurses' experience in a large university hospital. BMC Palliat Care 2018;17:112. 10.1186/s12904-018-0366-5
    1. Curcillo PG, Podolsky ER, King SA. The road to reduced Port surgery: from single big incisions to single small incisions, and beyond. World J Surg 2011;35:1526–31. 10.1007/s00268-011-1099-2
    1. El-Hamamsy D, Walton TJ, Griffiths TRL, et al. . Surgeon-Team separation in robotic Theaters: a qualitative observational and interview study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020;26:86–91. 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000829
    1. Dourish P, Bellotti V. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW ’92. Toronto. Ontario, Canada: ACM Press, 1992: 107–14.
    1. Schiff L, Tsafrir Z, Aoun J, et al. . Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes. JSLS 2016;20:e2016.00026. 10.4293/JSLS.2016.00026

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel