Muscle fatigue and physical discomfort reported by surgeons performing robotic-assisted surgery: a multinational survey

Comparing the Technological and Intraoperative Performances of Da Vinci xi and DaVinci 5 Robotic Platforms in Patients Undergoing Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, several Da Vinci robotic platforms have been released in the market, revolutionizing the field of robotic-assisted surgery (1, 2).The system has seen numerous modifications, with several Da Vinci® robotic models being introduced, each featuring ongoing technological advancements in ergonomics,instrumentation,high-definition imaging, EndoWrist™ technology, and single-port surgery capabilities (3, 4).Building on this, the new generation Da Vinci 5 robot promises significant hardware and software improvements, with the potential for enhanced operative performance (2, 5). In this video, we will illustrate several technical advancements of the Da Vinci 5.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a video compilation comparing the Da Vinci 5 and Da Vinci Xi during radical prostatectomy. The video will highlight the technical modifications of the new platform, showcasing the advancements and improvements in the Da Vinci 5 system. Additionally, this video will illustrate key aspects of the surgery, including anterior bladder neck access, lateral bladder dissection from the prostate, posterior prostate dissection and anastomosis.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

We performed our RARP technique with our standard approach in all patients (6-8). With this new platform, we maintained our conventional technique without any modifications or adaptions from the trocar placement until anastomosis. The beginning of the case is performed as usual, we first identify the anterior bladder neck and then complete its dissection with Maryland and Scissors. Then, we proceed to the posterior bladder neck dissection, seminal vesicles control and nerve-sparing. In sequence, we control the prostate arterial pedicles with hem-o-lok clips and then we perform the apical dissection until dividing the urethra. Finally, we perform the hemostasis, posterior reconstruction (Rocco's technique) and anastomosis with barbed suture.

RESULTS

The Da Vinci 5 features several key upgrades. The first part of our video described the console, patient cart, and energy tower modifications. The console has been ergonomically redesigned for a flat neck posture to decrease muscle fatigue, and the handgrip now includes a rubber surface for better grip (9). The patient cart, similar to the previous generation, has updated helm interfaces and integrated commands with the console and vision tower. In sequence, we described the instrument modifications and the step-by-step technique showing the DV5 and DV-Xi. Force feedback instruments provide three degrees of tactile feedback, enhancing tissue manipulation. A new security system ensures instruments can only be inserted when clear of tissues and obstructions, reducing the risk of errors. Another modification regards the ability to switch instruments and camera.

First Impressions of the New da Vinci 5 Robotic Platform and Experience in Performing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Over the past two decades, robotic surgery has seen substantial advances, with significant growth in novel platforms, particularly since 2019. As a high-volume center experienced with various robotic systems, we share our initial impressions of the new da Vinci 5 platform for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Key improvements include enhanced console ergonomics, more precise operative imaging, and the integration of smart commands for streamlined surgical control. Notably, force feedback instruments offer the potential for reduced tissue trauma, although further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness. Our early experiences suggest that surgeons familiar with previous da Vinci models, particularly the Xi platform, will find the transition to the da Vinci 5 seamless, with minimal learning curve adjustments. Using propensity score matching, we compared perioperative outcomes for 50 da Vinci 5 RARP procedures (performed after the learning curve) with 150 da Vinci Xi cases. In our experience, optimal performance and perioperative outcomes were obtained with both models. Further studies are needed to identify any clinically significant advantages of one platform over the other.

Patient summary

We compared outcomes for patients undergoing removal of the prostate using two different surgical robots (da Vinci Xi and da Vinci 5). Optimal operative outcomes were obtained with both robots, but further studies are needed to evaluate whether one robot is clinically superior to the other.

Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of Da Vinci vs. Hugo RAS for robot‑assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence based on controlled studies

A comparison was conducted between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using the Hugo RAS System and the Da Vinci System. We conducted an extensive search of online databases through September 2024. The data from eligible studies were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.4, employing a random effects model. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables. A total of eight original studies, involving 1155 patients (HUGO-RARP: 468 vs. da Vinci-RARP: 687), were included. Compared with da Vinci-RARP, HUGO-RARP had a longer docking time (WMD: 6.2 min; 95% CI 4.25-8.14; p < 0.0001), while no significant differences were observed in total operative time, console time, bladder neck dissection time, seminal vesicle dissection time, vesicourethral anastomosis time, or pelvic lymph node dissection time between two systems. There were no significant differences in hospital stay, estimated blood loss, catheter duration, or complication rates. Likewise, oncological and functional outcomes were similar between the two systems. While these results suggest that the Hugo RAS system performs as well as the Da Vinci system in RARP, more randomized controlled studies are needed to further evaluate prognostic outcomes.

Assessing Muscular Pain and Ergonomics Among Robotic Surgeons in China: A Validation

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has transformed minimally invasive procedures, offering precision and efficiency. However, the ergonomic aspects of robotic consoles and their impact on surgeon health remain understudied. This review investigates the burden of ergonomics and muscle fatigue among robotic surgeons in China, comparing the findings to a multinational study.

METHODOLOGY

A literature review identified themes related to physical discomfort in robotic surgery. A questionnaire was administered to Chinese robotic surgeons, yielding 40 responses. The study assessed demographic characteristics, surgeon experience, ergonomic practices, reported discomfort, and pain-relief mechanisms.

RESULTS

The study revealed that most surgeons experienced shoulder and neck pain, with mixed opinions on whether robotic surgery was the primary cause. Stretching exercises were commonly used for pain relief. Surgeons believed that case volume and surgery duration contributed to discomfort. Comparisons with a multinational study suggested potential demographic and experience-related differences.

CONCLUSION

While the study has limitations, including a small sample size and potential translation issues, it underscores the importance of addressing ergonomic concerns and providing proper training to robotic surgeons to ensure their well-being and longevity in the field. Further research with larger cohorts and platform-specific analyses is warranted.

Comparative Study of Ergonomics in Conventional and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aims to implement a set of wearable technologies to record and analyze the surgeon's physiological and ergonomic parameters during the performance of conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, comparing the ergonomics and stress levels of surgeons during surgical procedures.

METHODS

This study was organized in two different settings: simulator tasks and experimental model surgical procedures. The participating surgeons performed the tasks and surgical procedures in both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery in a randomized fashion. Different wearable technologies were used to record the surgeons' posture, muscle activity, electrodermal activity and electrocardiography signal during the surgical practice.

RESULTS

The simulator study involved six surgeons: three experienced (>100 laparoscopic procedures performed; 36.33 ± 13.65 years old) and three novices (<100 laparoscopic procedures; 29.33 ± 8.39 years old). Three surgeons of different surgical specialties with experience in laparoscopic surgery (>100 laparoscopic procedures performed; 37.00 ± 5.29 years old), but without experience in surgical robotics, participated in the experimental model study. The participating surgeons showed an increased level of stress during the robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Overall, improved surgeon posture was obtained during robotic-assisted surgery, with a reduction in localized muscle fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of wearable technologies was implemented to measure and analyze surgeon physiological and ergonomic parameters. Robotic-assisted procedures showed better ergonomic outcomes for the surgeon compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Ergonomic analysis allows us to optimize surgeon performance and improve surgical training.

Analysis of KangDuo-SR-1500 and KangDuo-SR-2000 robotic partial nephrectomy from an operative and ergonomic perspective: a prospective controlled study in porcine models

The objective of this study is to explore the safety and effectiveness of two new models of KangDuo surgical robots for partial nephrectomy in porcine models, and evaluate the ergonomic characteristics from both subjective and objective perspectives. Twelve porcine models were equally divided for KD-SR-1500 (three-arm) and KD-SR-2000 (four-arm). The perioperative outcomes, and physical and mental workload of the surgeon were compared. Physical workload was evaluated with surface electromyography. Mental workload was evaluated with NASA-TLX. All surgeries were performed successfully. There were no differences in perioperative variables (p > 0.05). There were no perioperative complications. The mental workload in both groups was at a low level. KD-SR-2000 showed advantages in physical workload (p < 0.01). KD-SR-1500 and KD-SR-2000 are technically feasible, valid, and safe for RAPN in porcine models. KD-SR-2000 had ergonomic advantages over KD-SR-1500.