• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparison of FLS Surgical Skills Performance Using a Motorised Instrument by Conventional Laparoscopy and by Single Port Access

Comparison of FLS Surgical Skills Performance Using a Motorised Instrument by Conventional Laparoscopy and by Single Port Access

Patrice Crochet, MD, Rajesh Aggarwal, PhD, Sophie Knight, MD, Karine Baumstarck, MD, Maxime Marcelli, MD, Jean-Philippe Estrade, MD, Eric Lambaudie, PhD, Alexandre Lazard, MD, Aubert Agostini, MD. 1. Department of Gynecology, La Conception Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, France. 2. Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

Introduction :
Single Port Access laparoscopy (SPA) has been suggested as a safe and less invasive alternative to standard laparoscopic surgery (LS). In spite of an increasing number of publications reporting a good feasibility in different surgical specialties, the limited ergonomics raise the question of operative quality as well as adapted instruments for use through a single port. This study aimed to compare performances of expert laparoscopic surgeons performing in LS or in SPA. The impact of the use of an articulated motorised laparoscopic instrument was additionally studied.

Methods and procedures :
In this study, six expert laparoscopic surgeons were recruited. All these subjects completed four tasks (1, 2, 4, 5) from the validated Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) curriculum. The tasks were performed using 4 consecutive operating setups with a randomized crossover design: LS or SPA using conventional straight instruments, LS or SPA using a 10 mm motorised articulated instrument (Kymerax, Terumo*). Assessment of the tasks was performed with standardized FLS metrics. Operative time (secs) and error scores were compared between the 4 operative setups using Mann-Whitney tests, and multiple comparisons were performed using Bonferonni corrections.

Results :
Operative time was significantly longer in SPA than in LS for tasks 1 and 4, using either conventional straight instruments (196 vs 70 secs, p=0.013 and 206 vs 100, p=0.013) or using motorised articulated instrument (229 vs 57, p=0.013 and 255 vs 115, p=0.026). Operative times were not statistically different between SPA and LS for task 2 and 5. By SPA, knot tying tasks 4 and 5 could not be performed within the maximum predefined cut off time (600 secs): once for task 4 and four times for tasks 5. By SPA, operative times were not significantly different using motorised articulated instrument compared to conventional straight instruments (task 1: 229 vs 196, p=1.00; task 2: 330 vs 324, p=1.00; task 4: 255 vs 206, p=0.311; task 5: 284 vs 457, p=1.00). No statistical difference was found in terms of error score for any of the tasks.

Conclusion :
This study demonstrated that SPA surgery required significantly longer operative time for expert surgeons and does not provide good operative conditions for knot tying. The use of the motorised articulated instrument tested does not provide a solution to counterbalance impaired operative ergonomics.
 

74

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals