Automation in Surgery

Abstract

The results have consequences for the design and clinical use of automated navigation support.

The Impact of Higher Levels of Automation on Performance and Situation Awareness

“…On the basis of these levels, our participants may be considered initiates at maximum-novices who began training in a specific field. This procedure was similar to that of many other studies in this context (e.g., Endsley & Kaber, 1999;Manzey et al, 2011;Parasuraman, Cosenzo, & De Visser, 2009). Still, it is crucial to know whether our results can be expended to experts and masters.…”

“…One reason for these inconsistent effects may be different cognitive profiles of the participants with whom the evaluations were conducted. For instance, Manzey et al (2011) sampled advanced medical students, but Calhoun et al (2009) sampled expert pilots. Different cognitive profiles may play a role, because the cognitive complexity of the mental model underlying task completion can increase with the additional automation (e.g., Kaber, Wright, Prinzel, & Clamann, 2005).…”

“…Technological progress has enabled the development of systems that automate cognitively complex functions, such as information analysis and decision selection (Sheridan & Parasuraman, 2006). However, evaluations of such systems have revealed inconsistent effects: In some studies, the performance and situation awareness of human operators decreased (e.g., Kaber, Onal, & Endsley, 2000; Manzey et al, 2011); in other studies, performance and situation awareness increased (e.g., Calhoun, Draper, & Ruff, 2009). One reason for these inconsistent effects may be different cognitive profiles of the participants with whom the evaluations were conducted.…”

“…Consideration of these effects may explain different outcomes between studies in the literature, which did not account for sample/population differences (Calhoun et al, 2009; Cummings & Mitchell, 2007; Endsley & Kaber, 1999; Ferris, Sarter, & Wickens, 2010; Kaber et al, 2000; Kaber & Endsley, 2004; Lin, Yenn, & Yang, 2010; Manzey et al, 2011; Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Sarter & Schroeder, 2001). For example, Manzey et al (2011) asked 14 advanced medical students to execute a simulated mastoidectomy. The students required significantly less time to complete the surgery task when they received assistance from the navigated control system, LOA = (moderate, moderate, moderate, moderate), than from the image-guided navigation system, LOA = (moderate, moderate, low, low).…”

The Impact of Robotic-Assisted Surgery on Team Performance: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review

“…The findings of this review highlight the salience of using standardised workflow processes in the execution of all phases of RAS to maximise clinical efficiency. Earlier experimental research in the use of automation in surgery suggests that repeated disruptions in workflow distract team members, diverting their attention to a secondary activity thus reducing their ability to respond to the primary task (Manzey et al, 2011). Some suggest that minimising disruptions caused by changing equipment and personnel during the procedure can be achieved through training team members to standardise moments during robotic surgery (Mathew et al, 2018;van der Vliet et al, 2019).…”