3D straight-stick laparoscopy versus 3D robotics for task performance in novice surgeons: a randomised crossover trial

The advent of three-dimensional passive stereoscopic imaging has led to the development of 3D laparoscopy. In simulation tasks, a reduction in error rate and performance time is seen with 3D compared to two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy with both novice and expert surgeons. Robotics utilises 3D and instrument articulation through a console interface. Robotic trials have demonstrated that tasks performed in 3D produced fewer errors and quicker performance times compared with those in 2D. It was therefore perceived that the main advantage of robotic surgery was in fact 3D. Our aim was to compare 3D straight-stick laparoscopic task performance (3D) with robotic 3D (Robot), to determine whether robotic surgery confers additional benefit over and above 3D visualisation. We randomised 20 novice surgeons to perform four validated surgical tasks, either with straight-stick 3D laparoscopy followed by 3D robotic surgery or in the reverse order. The trial was conducted in two fully functional operating theatres. The primary outcome of the study was the error rate as defined for each task, and the secondary outcome was the time taken to complete each task. The participants were asked to perform the tasks as quickly and as accurately as possible. Data were analysed using SPSS version 21. The median error rate for completion of all four tasks with the robot was 2.75 and 5.25 for 3D with a P value < 0.001. The median performance time for completion of all four tasks with the robot was 157.1 and 342.5 s for 3D with a P value < 0.001. Our study has shown that for novice surgeons, there is a significant benefit in a simulated setting of 3D robotic systems over 3D straight-stick laparoscopy, in terms of reduced error rate and quicker task performance time.