[go: up one dir, main page]

Yohannes et al., 2002 - Google Patents

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve?

Yohannes et al., 2002

Document ID
5325241718915046722
Author
Yohannes P
Rotariu P
Pinto P
Smith A
Lee B
Publication year
Publication venue
Urology

External Links

Snippet

Objectives. To evaluate the learning curve between robot-assisted and manual laparoscopic suturing, as well as to assess other skills. Laparoscopic reconstructive procedures have been limited by instrumentation, small working spaces, and fixed angles at the trocar level to …
Continue reading at www.sciencedirect.com (other versions)

Classifications

    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/04—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets for suturing wounds; Holders or packages for needles or suture materials
    • A61B17/06—Needles ; Sutures; Needle-suture combinations; Holders or packages for needles or suture materials
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/34—Trocars; Puncturing needles
    • A61B17/3417—Details of tips or shafts, e.g. grooves, expandable, bendable; Multiple coaxial sliding cannulas, e.g. for dilating
    • A61B17/3421—Cannulas
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/28—Surgical forceps
    • A61B17/29—Forceps for use in minimally invasive surgery
    • A61B2017/2926—Details of heads or jaws
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/068—Surgical staplers, e.g. containing multiple staples or clamps
    • A61B17/072—Surgical staplers, e.g. containing multiple staples or clamps for applying a row of staples in a single action, e.g. the staples being applied simultaneously
    • A61B17/07207—Surgical staplers, e.g. containing multiple staples or clamps for applying a row of staples in a single action, e.g. the staples being applied simultaneously the staples being applied sequentially
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/28—Surgical forceps
    • A61B17/2804—Surgical forceps with two or more pivotal connections
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G09—EDUCATION; CRYPTOGRAPHY; DISPLAY; ADVERTISING; SEALS
    • G09B—EDUCATIONAL OR DEMONSTRATION APPLIANCES; APPLIANCES FOR TEACHING, OR COMMUNICATING WITH, THE BLIND, DEAF OR MUTE; MODELS; PLANETARIA; GLOBES; MAPS; DIAGRAMS
    • G09B23/00—Models for scientific, medical, or mathematical purposes, e.g. full-sized devices for demonstration purposes
    • G09B23/28—Models for scientific, medical, or mathematical purposes, e.g. full-sized devices for demonstration purposes for medicine
    • G09B23/285—Models for scientific, medical, or mathematical purposes, e.g. full-sized devices for demonstration purposes for medicine for injections, endoscopy, bronchoscopy, sigmoidscopy, insertion of contraceptive devices or enemas
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/00234—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets for minimally invasive surgery
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/064—Surgical staples, i.e. penetrating the tissue
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B2017/00743—Type of operation; Specification of treatment sites
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A61—MEDICAL OR VETERINARY SCIENCE; HYGIENE
    • A61B—DIAGNOSIS; SURGERY; IDENTIFICATION
    • A61B17/00—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets
    • A61B17/11—Surgical instruments, devices or methods, e.g. tourniquets for performing anastomosis; Buttons for anastomosis

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Yohannes et al. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve?
Chitwood Jr et al. Robotic surgical training in an academic institution
Prasad et al. The effect of robotic assistance on learning curves for basic laparoscopic skills
Richards et al. Skills evaluation in minimally invasive surgery using force/torque signatures
Tang et al. Analysis of errors enacted by surgical trainees during skills training courses
Sung et al. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems
Nio et al. Efficiency of manual versus robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks
Bansal et al. A prospective randomized controlled blinded study to evaluate the effect of short-term focused training program in laparoscopy on operating room performance of surgery residents (CTRI/2012/11/003113)
Zhang et al. The added value of virtual reality technology and force feedback for surgical training simulators
Passerotti et al. Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices
Manasnayakorn et al. Ideal manipulation angle and instrument length in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery
Lai et al. Evaluating control modes for constrained robotic surgery
Tokas et al. Combining of ETHOS operating ergonomic platform, three-dimensional laparoscopic camera, and radius surgical system manipulators improves ergonomy in urologic laparoscopy: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and da Vinci in a pelvi trainer
Wilz et al. Constrained haptic-guided shared control for collaborative human–robot percutaneous nephrolithotomy training
Yamasaki et al. Effects of a force feedback function in a surgical robot on the suturing procedure
Hance et al. Robotics in colorectal surgery
Uysal et al. Evaluation of new motorized articulating laparoscopic instruments by laparoscopic novices using a standardized laparoscopic skills curriculum
Gallagher et al. An ergonomic analysis of the effects of camera rotation on laparoscopic performance
Hoznek et al. Laparoscopic and robotic surgical training in urology
Weizman et al. Design and validation of a novel assessment tool for laparoscopic suturing of the vaginal cuff during hysterectomy
Tagawa et al. Laparoscopic surgery simulator using first person view and guidance force
Dewaele et al. Is the human brain capable of controlling seven degrees of freedom?
Singapogu et al. A perspective on the role and utility of haptic feedback in laparoscopic skills training
Marecik et al. Evaluation of midlevel and upper-level residents performing their first robotic-sutured intestinal anastomosis
Lukovich et al. Training with curved laparoscopic instruments in single-port setting improves performance using straight instruments: a prospective randomized simulation study