Imperial College London
Alternate

DrDipankarNandi

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Brain Sciences

Professor of Practice (Neurosurgery)
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 3311 1182d.nandi

 
 
//

Location

 

Lab BlockCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Marcus:2016:10.1177/1553350615610650,
author = {Marcus, HJ and Seneci, CA and Hughes-Hallett, A and Cundy, TP and Nandi, D and Yang, G-Z and Darzi, A},
doi = {10.1177/1553350615610650},
journal = {Surg Innov},
pages = {148--155},
title = {Comparative Performance in Single-Port Versus Multiport Minimally Invasive Surgery, and Small Versus Large Operative Working Spaces: A Preclinical Randomized Crossover Trial.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1553350615610650},
volume = {23},
year = {2016}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BACKGROUND: Surgical approaches such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery, which utilize small operative working spaces, and are necessarily single-port, are particularly demanding with standard instruments and have not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously surgical performance in single-port versus multiport approaches, and small versus large working spaces. METHODS: Ten novice, 4 intermediate, and 1 expert surgeons were recruited from a university hospital. A preclinical randomized crossover study design was implemented, comparing performance under the following conditions: (1) multiport approach and large working space, (2) multiport approach and intermediate working space, (3) single-port approach and large working space, (4) single-port approach and intermediate working space, and (5) single-port approach and small working space. In each case, participants performed a peg transfer and pattern cutting tasks, and each task repetition was scored. RESULTS: Intermediate and expert surgeons performed significantly better than novices in all conditions (P < .05). Performance in single-port surgery was significantly worse than multiport surgery (P < .01). In multiport surgery, there was a nonsignificant trend toward worsened performance in the intermediate versus large working space. In single-port surgery, there was a converse trend; performances in the intermediate and small working spaces were significantly better than in the large working space. CONCLUSIONS: Single-port approaches were significantly more technically challenging than multiport approaches, possibly reflecting loss of instrument triangulation. Surprisingly, in single-port approaches, in which triangulation was no longer a factor, performance in large working spaces was worse than in intermediate and small working spaces.
AU  - Marcus,HJ
AU  - Seneci,CA
AU  - Hughes-Hallett,A
AU  - Cundy,TP
AU  - Nandi,D
AU  - Yang,G-Z
AU  - Darzi,A
DO  - 10.1177/1553350615610650
EP  - 155
PY  - 2016///
SP  - 148
TI  - Comparative Performance in Single-Port Versus Multiport Minimally Invasive Surgery, and Small Versus Large Operative Working Spaces: A Preclinical Randomized Crossover Trial.
T2  - Surg Innov
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1553350615610650
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26464468
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/31704
VL  - 23
ER  -
Download