The aim of this study is to describe the impact of robotic-assisted surgery on team performance in the operating room.
Background
The introduction of surgical robots has improved the technical performance of surgical procedures but has also contributed to unexpected interactions in surgical teams, leading to new types of errors.
Method
A systematic literature search of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, ProQuest, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases using key words and MeSH terms was conducted. Screening identified studies employing qualitative and quantitative methods published between January 2000 and September 2019. Two reviewers independently appraised the methodological quality of the articles using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Discussions were held among authors to examine quality scores of the studies and emergent themes, and agreement was reached through consensus. Themes were derived using inductive content analysis.
Results
Combined searches identified 1,065 citations. Of these, 19 articles, 16 quantitative and 3 qualitative, were included. Robotic-assisted surgeries included urology, gynecology, cardiac, and general procedures involving surgeons, anesthetists, nurses, and technicians. Three themes emerged: Negotiating the altered physical environs and adapting team communications to manage task and technology; managing the robotic system to optimize workflow efficiency; and technical proficiency depends on experience, team familiarity, and case complexity.
Conclusion
Inclusion of a robot as a team member adds further complexity to the work of surgery.
Application
These review findings will inform training programs specifically designed to optimize teamwork, workflow efficiency, and learning needs.
AhmadN.HusseinA. A.CavuotoL.SharifM.AllersJ. C.HinataN.AhmadB.KozlowskiJ. D.HashmiZ.BisantzA.GuruK. A. (2016). Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU International, 118, 132–139.doi:10.1111/bju.13426http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26800347
2.
AllersJ. C.HusseinA. A.AhmadN.CavuotoL.WingJ. F.HayesR. M.HinataN.BisantzA. M.GuruK. A. (2016). Evaluation and impact of workflow interruptions during robot-assisted surgery. Urology, 92, 33–37.doi:10.1016/j.urology.2016.02.040http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26966039
3.
AlmerasC. (2019). Operating room communication in robotic surgery: Place, modalities and evolution of a safe system of interaction. Journal of Visceral Surgery, 156, 397–403.doi:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.02.004http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30826303
4.
BlavierA.NyssenA.-S. (2014). The effect of 2D and 3D visual modes on surgical task performance: Role of expertise and adaptation processes. Cognition, Technology & Work, 16, 509–518.doi:10.1007/s10111-014-0281-3
5.
BricJ. D.LumbardD. C.FrelichM. J.GouldJ. C. (2016). Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: A review. Surgical Endoscopy, 30, 2169–2178.doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4517-yhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26304107
6.
CampbellM.FitzpatrickR.HainesA.KinmonthA. L.SandercockP.SpiegelhalterD.TyrerP. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal, 321, 694–696.doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10987780
7.
CaoC. G. L.TaylorH. (2004). Effects of new technology on the operating room team [Conference session]. 7th International Conference on Work with Computing Systems 2004, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
8.
CatchpoleK.PerkinsC.BreseeC.SolnikM. J.ShermanB.FritchJ.GrossB.JagannathanS.Hakami-MajdN.AvenidoR.AngerJ. T. (2016). Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: A human factors analysis. Surgical Endoscopy, 30, 3749–3761.doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4671-226675938
9.
CatchpoleK. R. (2011). Task, team and technology integration in the paediatric cardiac operating room. Progress in Pediatric Cardiology, 32, 85–88.doi:10.1016/j.ppedcard.2011.10.005
10.
CatchpoleK. R.HallettE.CurtisS.MirchiT.SoudersC. P.AngerJ. T. (2018). Diagnosing barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery. Ergonomics, 61, 26–39.doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.129884528271956
11.
CunninghamS.CaoC. G. L. (2012). Spatial communication in robotic surgery. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56, 946–950.doi:10.1177/1071181312561198
12.
CunninghamS.ChellaliA.JaffreI.ClasseJ.CaoC. G. L. (2013). Effects of experience and workplace culture in human-robot team interaction in robotic surgery: A case study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 75–88.doi:10.1007/s12369-012-0170-y
13.
DruC. J.AngerJ. T.SoudersC. P.BreseeC.WeiglM.HallettE.CatchpoleK. (2017). Surgical flow disruptions during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. The Canadian Journal of Urology, 24, 8814–8821.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28646936
14.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.doi:10.1518/001872095779049543
15.
FlinR.O’ConnorP.CrichtonM. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: A guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate.
16.
FreischlagJ. A. (2012). The operating room dance. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21, 1–2.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-00051722101105
17.
GillespieB. M.ChaboyerW.FairweatherN. (2012). Factors that influence the expected length of operation: Results of a prospective study. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21, 3–12.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000169http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22003174
18.
GillespieB. M.HarbeckE.KangE.SteelC.FairweatherN.ChaboyerW. (2017a). Correlates of non-technical skills in surgery: A prospective study. BMJ Open, 7, e014480.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014480http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28137931
19.
GillespieB.HarbeckE.KangE.SteelC.FairweatherN.PanuwatwanichK.ChaboyerW. (2017b). Effect of a brief team training program on surgical teams' non-technical skills: An interrupted time-series study. Journal of Patient Safety, 1–7.
20.
GjeraaK.SpanagerL.KongeL.PetersenR. H.ØstergaardD. (2016). Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: A systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy, 30, 5185–5199.doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4890-1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27066972
21.
GraaflandM.SchraagenJ. M. C.BoermeesterM. A.BemelmanW. A.SchijvenM. P. (2015). Training situational awareness to reduce surgical errors in the operating room. British Journal of Surgery, 102, 16–23.doi:10.1002/bjs.9643http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25298183
HopewellS.ClarkeM.LefebvreC.SchererR. (2007). Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 18, MR000001.doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000001.pub2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443625
25.
HullL.AroraS.AggarwalR.DarziA.VincentC.SevdalisN. (2012). The impact of nontechnical skills on technical performance in surgery: A systematic review. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 214, 214–230.doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.10.016http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200377
26.
JainM.FryB. T.HessL. W.AngerJ. T.GewertzB. L.CatchpoleK. (2016). Barriers to efficiency in robotic surgery: The resident effect. Journal of Surgical Research, 205, 296–304.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.092http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27664876
27.
LaiF.EntinE. (2005). Robotic surgery and the operating room team. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49, 1070–1073.doi:10.1177/154193120504901115
28.
LimP. C. (2013). Robotics in gynecologic surgery. Contemporary OB/GYN, 58.
29.
LimP. C.KangE.ParkD. H. (2010). Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: Case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 17, 739–748.doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.008http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20955983
30.
ManzeyD.LuzM.MuellerS.DietzA.MeixensbergerJ.StraussG. (2011). Automation in surgery. Human Factors, 53, 584–599.doi:10.1177/0018720811426141
31.
MathewR.MarkeyK.MurphyJ.BrienB. (2018). Integrative literature review examining factors affecting patient safety with robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50, 645–652.doi:10.1111/jnu.12437http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30376207
32.
McCullochP.MishraA.HandaA.DaleT.HirstG.CatchpoleK. (2009). The effects of aviation-style non-technical skills training on technical performance and outcome in the operating theatre. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18, 109–115.doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.032045http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342524
33.
MishraA.CatchpoleK.DaleT.McCullochP. (2008). The influence of non-technical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy, 22, 68–73.doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9346-1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17479324
34.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanD. GThe PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Müller-StichB. P.ReiterM. A.WenteM. N.BintintanV.KöningerJ.BüchlerM. W.GuttC. N. (2007). Robot-Assisted versus conventional laparoscopic fundoplication: Short-term outcome of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Surgical Endoscopy, 21, 1800–1805.doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9268-yhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17353978
37.
MüllerP.TschanF.KellerS.SeelandtJ.BeldiG.ElferingA.DubachB.CandinasD.PereiraD.SemmerN. K. (2018). Assessing perceptions of teamwork quality among perioperative team members. AORN Journal, 108, 251–262.doi:10.1002/aorn.12343http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30156726
NgK. T.TsiaA. K. V.ChongV. Y. L.Azlan Kok VuiT.Vanessa Yu LingC. (2019). Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. World Journal of Surgery, 43, 1146–1161.doi:10.1007/s00268-018-04896-7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30610272
40.
NyssenA.-S.BlavierA. (2010). Integrating collective work aspects in the design process: An analysis case study of the robotic surgery using communication as a sign of fundamental change. InPalanqueP.VanderdoncktJ.WincklerM. (Eds.), Human error, safety and systems development. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5962, pp.18–27). Springer.
41.
PalagoniaE.MazzoneE.De NaeyerG.D'HondtF.CollinsJ.WiszP.Van LeeuwenF. W. B.Van Der PoelH.SchattemanP.MottrieA.Dell'OglioP. (2020). The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon. World Journal of Urology, 38, 1373–1383.doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02901-9http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31428847
42.
PluyeP.HongQ. N. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29–45.doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24188053
43.
RandellR.AlvaradoN.HoneyS.GreenhalghJ.GardnerP.GillA.JayneD.KotzeA.PearmanA.DowdingD. (2015). Impact of robotic surgery on decision making: Perspectives of surgical teams. AMIA ... Annual Symposium Proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2015, 1057–1066.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26958244
44.
RandellR.HoneyS.AlvaradoN.PearmanA.GreenhalghJ.LongA.GardnerP.GillA.JayneD.DowdingD. (2016). Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: A review of the experience of surgical teams. Cognition, Technology & Work, 18, 423–437.doi:10.1007/s10111-016-0368-0
45.
RogersS. O.GawandeA. A.KwaanM.PuopoloA. L.YoonC.BrennanT. A.StuddertD. M. (2006). Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery, 140, 25–33.doi:10.1016/j.surg.2006.01.008http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16857439
46.
ScarpinataR.AlyE. H. (2013). Does robotic rectal cancer surgery offer improved early postoperative outcomes?Diseases of the colon and rectum, 56, 253–262.doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182694595http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23303155
47.
SchiffL.TsafrirZ.AounJ.TaylorA.TheoharisE.EisensteinD. (2016). Quality of communication in robotic surgery and surgical outcomes (Vol. 20). Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.
48.
SevdalisN.DavisR.KoutantjiM.UndreS.DarziA.VincentC. A. (2008). Reliability of a revised NOTECHS scale for use in surgical teams. The American Journal of Surgery, 196, 184–190.doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.08.070http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558392
49.
SextonK.JohnsonA.GotschA.HusseinA. A.CavuotoL.GuruK. A. (2018). Anticipation, teamwork and cognitive load: Chasing efficiency during robot-assisted surgery. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27, 148–154.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006701http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28689193
50.
SorensenM. D.JohnsonM. H.DelostrinosC.BiceJ. B.GradyR. W.LendvayT. S. (2010). Initiation of a pediatric robotic surgery program: Institutional challenges and realistic outcomes. Surgical Endoscopy, 24, 2803–2808.doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1052-8http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20376494
51.
SoudersC. P.CatchpoleK.HannemannA.LyonR.EilberK. S.BreseeC.CohenT.WeiglM.AngerJ. T. (2019). Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: Does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons?International Urogynecology Journal, 30, 2177–2182.doi:10.1007/s00192-019-03929-6http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31041500
52.
TaylorD. (2016). A reflection on the experiences of implementing gynaecology robotic surgery. Journal of Perioperative Practice, 26, 36–41.doi:10.1177/175045891602600302http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27149831
53.
ThomasJ.HardenA.OakleyA.OliverS.SutcliffeK.ReesR.BruntonG.KavanaghJ. (2004). Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ, 328, 1010–1012.doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1010http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15105329
54.
TiferesJ.HusseinA. A.BisantzA.HigginbothamD. J.SharifM.KozlowskiJ.AhmadB.O'HaraR.WawrzyniakN.GuruK. (2019). Are gestures worth a thousand words? Verbal and nonverbal communication during robot-assisted surgery. Applied Ergonomics, 78, 251–262.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.015http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29525267
55.
TiferesJ.HusseinA. A.BisantzA.KozlowskiJ. D.SharifM. A.WinderN. M.AhmadN.AllersJ.CavuotoL.GuruK. A. (2016). The loud surgeon behind the console: Understanding team activities during robot-assisted surgery. Journal of Surgical Education, 73, 504–512.doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.12.009http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27068189
56.
UsluY.AltınbaşY.ÖzercanT.van GiersbergenM. Y. (2019). The process of nurse adaptation to robotic surgery: A qualitative study. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 15, e1996.doi:10.1002/rcs.1996http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30884169
57.
van der VlietW. J.HaenenS. M.Solis-VelascoM.DejongC. H. C.NeumannU. P.MoserA. J.van DamR. M. (2019). Systematic review of team performance in minimally invasive abdominal surgery. BJS Open, 3, 252–259.doi:10.1002/bjs5.50133http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31183440
58.
WeberJ.CatchpoleK.BeckerA. J.SchlenkerB.WeiglM. (2018). Effects of flow disruptions on mental workload and surgical performance in robotic-assisted surgery. World Journal of Surgery, 42, 3599–3607.doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4689-4http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29845381
59.
WeiglM.WeberJ.HallettE.PfandlerM.SchlenkerB.BeckerA.CatchpoleK. (2018). Associations of intraoperative flow disruptions and operating room teamwork during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology, 114, 105–113.doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.11.060http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29371162
60.
WiegmannD. A.ElBardissiA. W.DearaniJ. A.DalyR. C.SundtT. M. (2007). Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: An exploratory investigation. Surgery, 142, 658–665.doi:10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.034http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17981185
61.
ZhengB.FungE.FuB.PantonN. M.SwanströmL. L. (2015). Surgical team composition differs between laparoscopic and open procedures. Surgical Endoscopy, 29, 2260–2265.doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3938-3http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25361656
62.
ZhengB.MartinecD.CasseraM. A.SwanströmL. L. (2008). A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 22, 2171–2177.doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0017-7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18622567
63.
ZhuP.LiaoW.DingZ.-Y.ChenL.ZhangW.-G.ZhangB.-X.ChenX.-P.Ze-yangD.Wan-guangZ.Bi-xiangZ. (2019). Learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 23, 1778–1787.doi:10.1007/s11605-018-3689-xhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30406576
