4.5 Article

Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessons from studies 'in the Wild'

Journal

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
Volume 78, Issue -, Pages 270-276

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.011

Keywords

Surgery; Robotics; Human factors; Automation; Workload; Teamwork

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme [12/5005/04]
  2. NIHR Clinical Research Network
  3. Munich Centre for Health Sciences (MC -Health)
  4. University at Buffalo
  5. ATLAS lab
  6. Roswell Park Alliance Foundation
  7. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging & Biomedical Engineering Award [R03EB017447]
  8. UCLA Medical Student Training in Aging Research Program -the National Institute on Aging [T35AG026736]
  9. John A. Hartford Foundation
  10. Lillian R. Gleitsman Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews studies conducted in the wild that explore the ironies of automation in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS). Workload may be reduced for the surgeon, but increased for other team members, with postural stress relocated rather than reduced, and the introduction of a range of new challenges, for example, in the need to control multiple arms, with multiple instruments; and the increased demands of being physically separated from the team. Workflow disruptions were not compared with other surgeries; however, the prevalence of equipment and training disruptions differs from other types of surgeries. A consistent observation is that communication and coordination problems are relatively frequent, suggesting that the surgical team may need to be trained to use specific verbal and non-verbal cues during surgery. RAS also changes the necessary size of the operating room instrument cleaning processes. These studies demonstrate the value of clinically-based human factors engineers working alongside surgical teams to improve the delivery of RAS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available