|Year : 2017 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 90-103
Medical simulation and the surgical resident: Creating synergies through focus on education and morbidity reduction in general laparoscopy
David S Strosberg1, Nicholas Latchana1, Tammy L Kindel2, Mamta Swaroop3, Umer I Chaudhry1, Sabrena F Noria1, Rachel L Choron4, Mark J Seamon5, Maggie J Lin6, Melissa L Mao6, James Cipolla6, Dane Scantling5, Niels D Martin5, David C Evans1, Thomas J Papadimos7, Noel Martins8, Stanislaw P Stawicki6
1 Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
2 Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
3 Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
4 Department of Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey, USA
5 Department of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
6 Department of Surgery, Division of Gastroenterology, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
7 Department of Anesthesiology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
8 Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
|Date of Web Publication||7-Jul-2017|
Stanislaw P Stawicki
Department of Research and Innovation, St. Lukefs University Health Network, EW.2 Research Administration, 801 Ostrum Street, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Minimally invasive surgery continues to grow in terms of overall case volumes and clinical applications, with ever-evolving operative indications. Despite obvious advantages, numerous implementation challenges and diverse complications associated with laparoscopy exist. The understanding of technical nuances, anesthesia-related considerations, and perioperative physiologic alterations is paramount to acquisition and maintenance of skills for minimally invasive surgery specialists. To effectively meet the increasing demand for laparoscopic procedures, it is important that surgeons are adequately trained in operative techniques, requisite cognitive skills, safety practices, and the management of associated complications. This task can be accomplished through medical simulation of appropriate scenarios which can emphasize education and prevention in a safe learning environment. This focused review outlines key complications of laparoscopy and how medical simulation can be of assistance in the residents' educational experience.
The following core competencies are addressed in this article: Medical knowledge, Patient care, Practice-based learning and improvement, Systems-based practice.
Keywords: Patient simulation, surgical education, complication prevention, laparoscopy, morbidity, minimally invasive surgery
|How to cite this article:|
Strosberg DS, Latchana N, Kindel TL, Swaroop M, Chaudhry UI, Noria SF, Choron RL, Seamon MJ, Lin MJ, Mao ML, Cipolla J, Scantling D, Martin ND, Evans DC, Papadimos TJ, Martins N, Stawicki SP. Medical simulation and the surgical resident: Creating synergies through focus on education and morbidity reduction in general laparoscopy. Int J Acad Med 2017;3:90-103
|How to cite this URL:|
Strosberg DS, Latchana N, Kindel TL, Swaroop M, Chaudhry UI, Noria SF, Choron RL, Seamon MJ, Lin MJ, Mao ML, Cipolla J, Scantling D, Martin ND, Evans DC, Papadimos TJ, Martins N, Stawicki SP. Medical simulation and the surgical resident: Creating synergies through focus on education and morbidity reduction in general laparoscopy. Int J Acad Med [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Jan 18];3:90-103. Available from: https://www.ijam-web.org/text.asp?2017/3/1/90/209862
| Introduction|| |
Since its introduction nearly four decades ago, surgical volumes and applications for minimally invasive procedures continue to increase and evolve.,,,,, Despite many potential advantages, laparoscopy is associated with a number of challenges and complications.,,, In one large series describing laparoscopic surgical experience, morbidity exceeded 13%, with associated mortality of 0.2%. Technical aspects of surgery, anesthesia-related considerations, and physiologic alterations should be thoroughly understood by laparoscopists.,, The importance of surgical education in this context must be both appreciated and emphasized, from teaching of basic skills to providing advanced simulation experiences and clinical mentoring.,,, The current manuscript provides a high-level overview of morbidity associated with general laparoscopy, focusing on the role of targeted educational tools to prevent adverse occurrences.
| Complications of Laparoscopy: Focus on Simulation|| |
High-quality, structured laparoscopic education is critical to improving and maintaining operative skills.,, It may also offer an avenue to prepare surgeons to better deal with various complications.,, Within the overall context of simulation, it is important to maintain a balanced approach, with the level of experience being appropriate to the learners' skills, goals, and needs. Finally, the advent of advanced simulation and virtual reality-based training tools will likely provide the added advantage of a realistic, high-fidelity experience that closely approximates actual clinical scenarios. Laparoscopic simulation offers an important avenue for proficiency level assessment and personalized skills development., Furthermore, virtual reality experiences have now been shown to produce significant improvement in task-specific skills rating (e.g., fewer errors and better economy of movement) as well as substantial reductions in operative times., Throughout the current discussion, the authors will refer to educational resources relevant to each respective manuscript section.
| Supplementary Materials|| |
Because the discussion of many procedure-specific complications is beyond the scope of the current article, the readers are directed to [Supplementary Materials Exhibit A] [Additional file 1] and [Supplementary Materials Exhibit B] [Additional file 2] for a more comprehensive listing of sources pertaining to the most common discipline-specific and operation-specific items, respectively. In addition, a high-level overview of complications outlined in this report is provided in [Table 1].
|Table 1: Summary of major complications of laparoscopy discussed in this report (listed alphabetically)|
Click here to view
| Contraindications for Laparoscopy: from Absolute to Relative|| |
Consistent with established surgical principles for patient-centered care, consideration should always be given to operative feasibility before commencing a potentially difficult laparoscopic procedure.,, This understanding should be an important component of surgical residency curricula and continuing education for laparoendoscopists. For example, laparoscopic splenectomy in a patient with splenomegaly, laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma, or laparoscopic colorectal procedures in patients with advanced frailty are among clinical scenarios where careful preoperative planning is prudent.,,,,, Operator skills and comfort continue to be among the most important factors influencing the choice of operative approach. Consequently, excellent knowledge of one's laparoscopic capabilities and comfort levels becomes a critical cognitive surgical skill, and the performance of honest and accurate self-assessment should again be emphasized in residency, fellowship, and continuing education curricula. Finally, due to the evolving character of absolute and relative contraindications to laparoscopy, frequent reviews of the topic focusing on new developments and clinical updates should be conducted on routine basis at each institution that performs minimally invasive procedures.
As laparoscopic techniques and devices have evolved, absolute contraindications to laparoscopy have become rare. The following factors have been proposed as absolute contraindications to laparoscopy: (a) patient who is not expected to tolerate increased intra-abdominal pressures and simultaneous general anesthetic administration; (b) significant bowel dilatation (despite attempts at preoperative decompression); (c) generalized peritonitis in the presence of massive intra-abdominal contamination., In addition, some consider hemodynamic instability, increased intracranial pressure, and ocular hypertension as absolute contraindications.,,,
Uncorrected coagulopathy, hypovolemia, congestive heart failure, or other conditions that may compromise hematologic or cardiopulmonary function during laparoscopy represent relative contraindications., Prior history of open abdominal surgery with dense intraperitoneal adhesions may constitute a relative contraindication. In severe cases, mechanical bowel obstruction is also a relative contraindication to laparoscopy because safe access to the peritoneal cavity may be prohibitively difficult and associated with disproportionate risk of iatrogenic injury. Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension are considered poor candidates because increased portal venous pressures combined with coagulopathy may increase the risk of hemorrhage and make laparoscopic control of bleeding very challenging.
Pregnancy may be considered a relative contraindication for nonemergent laparoscopic procedures, especially during the first and last trimesters. Thus, elective surgery during pregnancy should be delayed until the second trimester or postpartum. However, in emergent situations, laparoscopy can be performed in all trimesters with a reasonable safety margin. In such cases, the rate of complications is comparable between laparoscopic and open surgery during pregnancy. From a maternal-fetal hemodynamics perspective, a left lateral decubitus position can reduce inferior vena cava compression attributable to the gravid uterus. In addition, an open (“cut down”) abdominal entry technique is recommended to avoid injury to the uterus and fetus, which can reach the level of the umbilicus by approximately 20 weeks of gestation. In terms of simulation resources for operative skills training, virtual reality tools now exist that are capable of projecting high-fidelity, three-dimensional (3D) scenarios applicable to laparoscopy in pregnancy.
| Anesthesia and Physiological Considerations|| |
Gas insufflation of the abdomen can be associated with rare but potentially severe morbidity. Because cylinders used for storage and transport of carbon dioxide (CO2) can develop particulate contaminants (both inert and microbial) over time, insufflation equipment should feature a 0.3 μ filter to capture any potential contaminating particles or bacteria that may have colonized the circuit and become aerosolized in the insufflation gas. Peritoneal insufflation requires the use of an inert gas. While nitrous oxide has been demonstrated to be safe for insufflation of the abdomen, CO2 is the most studied and the most commonly used inert gas for achieving pneumoperitoneum. CO2 is favored due to its high solubility in blood, rapid absorption by the peritoneal lining, and subsequent elimination during ventilation. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can experience intraoperative CO2 retention with resultant acidosis, but generally, CO2 insufflation has been safe, even during prolonged cases in patients with mild/moderate COPD.
Insufflation with gas increases the intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), potentially impeding venous return to the heart and promoting venous stasis. In turn, associated physiologic alterations can lead to bradycardia and hypotension. When encountered, these manifestations are managed by evacuation of pneumoperitoneum and administration of intravenous fluids to augment intravascular volume. Increased airway pressures usually do not appear at the lower IAPs routinely used in laparoscopy. Thus, acute airway pressure elevations may indicate a more serious complication (e.g., tension pneumothorax). It is also important to remember that these phenomena can be actively modulated by Trendelenburg and reverse Trendelenburg positioning, both utilized frequently in laparoscopic surgery.,,
Compared to open surgery, abdominal insufflation with CO2 has been shown to create fewer immunologic alterations and less severe postoperative inflammatory response., Precise physiologic mechanisms responsible for this difference are not yet fully understood. Both anesthesiologists and surgeons must be aware of the impact of insufflation, including capnothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema (SE). These can usually be treated nonoperatively. However, in an event of acute cardio-respiratory instability, appropriate intervention(s) may be required. SE is rarely of clinical consequence unless it affects airway patency.
Bag-mask ventilation during induction can increase gastric distension and may lead to increased risk of emesis or iatrogenic injury to the stomach upon surgical abdominal entry. Nasogastric or orogastric tube placement after induction, but before commencement of the surgical procedure, can minimize these risks. Gastric decompression can also improve surgical visualization of upper abdominal structures (e.g. gallbladder, diaphragm, and spleen). Although very rare, esophageal intubation and ventilation must be immediately recognized and corrected. Finally, nausea and vomiting are common after laparoscopy, mediated largely through vagal afferents. Prophylactic ondansetron and dexamethasone are routinely used to mitigate this risk.
The use of simulation in various anesthesiology-related applications is emerging as a powerful educational tool. It has been suggested that highly realistic virtual reality scenarios may help improve patient safety by exposing anesthesiology (and surgical) trainees to a broad variety of simulated intraoperative and perioperative complications. In addition, early experiences with advanced digital image processing techniques suggest that simulated abdominal insufflation may become an option for laparoscopic surgery planning.
| Access-Related Complications|| |
A significant proportion of laparoscopic complications occur at the time of abdominal entry. Access into the peritoneum can be performed in a variety of methods including open entry (Hasson), Veress needle (VN), direct trocar insertion, and hybrid forms of entry., These techniques can each carry complications including intra-abdominal vascular injury, abdominal wall vascular injury, visceral injury, solid organ injury, and failed entry., Evidence does not favor open versus closed techniques for the prevention of major vascular or visceral complications.,,, Other risk factors for access-related complications include previous laparotomy, obese or thin body habitus, and anticoagulation. From an educational and surgical training perspective, virtually every step of the laparoscopic procedure can now be taught and simulated thanks to modern technological advances, including tasks such as trocar insertion.,
| Subcutaneous Emphysema|| |
SE is a well-recognized complication of laparoscopy [Figure 1]. Radiographically, some evidence of SE can be seen postoperatively in most laparoscopic cases; however, symptoms manifest in fewer than 3% of cases., Extraperitoneal CO2 is associated with changes in end-tidal CO2 and alterations in CO2 elimination, making end-tidal CO2 an early clinical indicator of SE., In some cases, SE may progress to pneumomediastinum or pneumothorax through dissection of CO2 along susceptible fascial planes., In some cases, pneumomediastinum or pneumothorax may also lead to SE. In extreme cases, air in the upper mediastinum and neck may be associated with airway compromise. Although not specifically designed to simulate SE, various existing virtual reality training platforms may be easily modified to accommodate this particular scenario for educational purposes.,,
| Pneumothorax|| |
Pneumothorax associated with abdominal laparoscopy is rare [Table 1]. Clinically, pneumothorax may manifest with a decrease in lung compliance, hypercarbia, hypoxemia, and hemodynamic instability requiring prompt recognition and emergent intervention.,, Pneumothorax during laparoscopy may occur after an unrecognized puncture of the thoracic cavity, permitting entrance of CO2 into the pleural space. In some cases, surgical dissection along the left crus of the diaphragm may also damage the parietal pleura and permit CO2 entry under pressure.,, Finally, CO2 can also dissect along the retroperitoneal planes into the pleural space.
The treatment of CO2-related pneumothorax is controversial. In the hemodynamically unstable patient, needle thoracostomy or chest tube insertion may be required., However, CO2 pneumothorax may also resolve spontaneously within several hours, without any invasive intervention. Thus, clinical observation seems sufficient in most cases. Attention to proper intraoperative technique, limiting insufflation pressures below 10–14 mmHg, as well as close monitoring of airway pressures and end-tidal CO2 will help minimize the incidence of pneumothorax associated with laparoscopy. Similar to SE, existing virtual reality platforms can be modified to simulate visual findings and physiologic alterations associated with tension pneumothorax in the laparoscopic setting.,,,
| Gas Embolism|| |
Venous gas embolism (VGE), a rare (1 in 64,800 procedures) but potentially life-threatening complication of laparoscopy, can occur rapidly through a direct defect in an abdominal vessel, or gradually via incremental accretion of gas within the circulatory system. Embolization of gas leads to its accumulation within the pulmonary outflow tract of the right heart, which could potentially affect cardiac output. Sudden, profound hypotension, cyanosis, and tachycardia are indicators of a potential underlying VGE.
Despite the low incidence of VGE, a high index of suspicion for this complication should always be maintained during pneumoperitoneum. All members of the surgical team should be vigilant for early, subtle signs (e.g., hypercarbia) suggestive of this diagnosis before overt manifestations become apparent. Late clinical findings include a characteristic “mill wheel murmur,” cardiac arrhythmias, elevated central venous pressure, decreased end-tidal CO2, worsening hypercapnia and hypoxemia, and even cardiovascular collapse., Transesophageal echocardiography is the best confirmatory test for intracardiac VGE.
VGE should be differentiated from other serious conditions including acute coronary syndrome, venous thromboembolism, and cardiogenic shock. If VGE is suspected, the laparoscopic procedure should be halted as soon as safely feasible, pneumoperitoneum should be released, and the abdominal cavity should be flushed with irrigation fluid to halt the uptake of gas into susceptible vessels. The patient should then be placed either in the left lateral decubitus position with the head sharply down or in the Trendelenburg position, which will help keep air away from the cardiac outflow tract and toward the apex of the right heart where evacuation can be attempted via percutaneous transvenous aspiration., If percutaneous aspiration is not feasible, a central line or pulmonary artery catheter may be advanced into the right atrium and used to aspirate any air.,,, Inotropes and aggressive fluid resuscitation may be required to combat the loss of cardiac output while increased FiO2 can ameliorate hypoxemia. Hyperbaric oxygen may also be of benefit in some cases. To create a high-quality training/didactic environment, practice VGE scenarios will have to incorporate elements of virtual reality procedural simulation with situation awareness and cognitive skills development.,,,,,,
| Vascular Injury|| |
Potentially life-threatening vascular injuries occur between 0.1% and 2.6% (depending on procedure type) of laparoscopic surgeries and may range from superficial abdominal wall vessel injuries to major injuries of the vena cava or aorta.,,,, The majority of vascular injuries occur during initial entry into the abdomen, with the superior and inferior epigastric vessels involved in approximately 1.5% of cases. Laparoscopic (e.g., using suture passer) or open (e.g., direct suture) ligation of the bleeding abdominal wall vessel may be required. If identified postoperatively in a stable patient, abdominal wall bleeding can be managed with interventional coil embolization if bleeding persists and/or is difficult to localize. Major (e.g. aortic, vena cava) vascular injury occurs in approximately 1 in 1000 laparoscopic cases. In such instances, immediate clinical recognition and prompt conversion to an open procedure are critical to achieve rapid proximal and distal vascular control in preparation for the definitive vascular repair. Surgical management of visible hematomas should approximate approaches used in penetrating trauma., Less common sources of major hemorrhage have been associated with laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs and include the artery of Sampson, epigastric vessels, and injuries of the iliac arterial system (including unnamed branches). In addition to providing training directed at improving situational awareness and critical decision-making,,,,, there is evidence that virtual reality laparoscopic simulation may help enhance the technical skills needed to effectively manage intraoperative bleeding complications.
| Visceral Injury|| |
Visceral injuries may be caused by trocar insertion, mechanical injury, and electrocautery. Accidental bowel injuries attributable to off-camera instrumentation are estimated to occur in about 1% of laparoscopic cases., Previous abdominal surgery may be associated with increased risk., Clinical management depends on the extent of injury. For example, a VN injury can be repaired by placing a simple seromuscular suture over the puncture site. On the other hand, full thickness tears involving >50% of bowel circumference may require segmental resection/reanastomosis. Bowel repairs can be performed laparoscopically or in an open fashion, depending on the surgeon's skills and comfort level. If the injury is secondary to electrocautery, the extent of tissue injury cannot be reliably determined by the appearance of visible serosal change. Electrocautery injury tends to progress away from the point of initial contact over a period of 24–48 h, often resulting in a much greater extent of injury than initially suspected. Thus, some authors recommended excision of a generous segment (e.g., up to 5 cm on each side of the full thickness electrocautery injury) to reduce the risk of needing second operations from inadequate resection and reperforation. Early recognition and immediate repair of iatrogenic visceral trauma is the best way to reduce associated morbidity and mortality. Due to the heterogeneity of laparoscopic visceral injuries, surgical education in this area should involve multimodal approaches, from virtual reality simulation , to targeted didactics that focus on required knowledge base, surgical “situational and self-awareness”, and complication-specific preventive strategies.,,,
| Bladder and Ureteral Injuries|| |
Laparoscopic urinary tract injuries may occur in over 8% of cases, depending on procedural and anatomic considerations. The incidence of bladder injury varies between 0.40% and 8.30% of cases, depending on procedure extent and type. Significant morbidity may result from unrecognized bladder injuries.,, Lower abdominal entry may be associated with an elevated risk of bladder injury, especially in the presence of lower abdominal adhesions or history of pelvic radiation therapy. Given the overall surgical context, care must be taken during lower abdominal trocar and/or VN insertion to avoid trauma to the bladder. Injuries may be minimized by ensuring bladder decompression prior to abdominal entry, either by having the patient void or through preoperative insertion of a urinary catheter. Less commonly, bladder injuries can result from surgical stapling devices, overzealous retraction, or improper tissue-handling. Early recognition and surgical repair reduces morbidity, including renal insufficiency, abdominal sepsis, urinary fistula formation, and potentially mortality. In one series, 96% of bladder injuries were detected and treated intraoperatively. Some injuries discovered postoperatively can be managed nonsurgically with prolonged urinary catheter drainage, but operative repair may still be needed if these measures are unsuccessful.,,,,, It is important to maintain a high index of suspicion for bladder injuries in patients who exhibit unexplained abdominal or pelvic pain, or urinary complaints after laparoscopic procedures, especially if the index procedure is associated with known risk of said injuries.
Injury to the ureters during laparoscopic operations is also rare (0.1%–3%), generally involving colorectal, urologic, and gynecologic procedures.,,,, Laparoscopic colectomy procedures may be associated with an increased risk of ureteral injury when compared to open colectomies. Of note, the proportion of ureteral injuries identified and repaired during the index operation is much lower (50%) than that for bladder injuries (e.g., 96%). Ureteral stenting may help identify injuries intraoperatively but does not necessarily reduce the injury incidence itself.,,, Management of ureteral injuries is beyond the scope of the current manuscript but depends on the extent of iatrogenic damage, timing of detection, and the location of the injury.,,
Sound educational foundation is required to help reduce the incidence of bladder and ureteral injuries. Due to the heterogeneous nature of potential injury mechanisms, including trocar insertion, retraction, and electrosurgical trauma, a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach is required to adequately train residents in strategies to avoid these iatrogenic mishaps. With the advent of mechanical simulators, surgical tasks that carry increased risk of intraoperative injury, including trocar insertion, can be realistically taught to trainees., Combined with high-fidelity virtual reality simulation and targeted didactic sessions, the ability to simulate tactile feedback encountered during trocar placement may provide the missing component needed to achieve the desired reduction in related complications.,,
| Diaphragmatic Injury|| |
Although iatrogenic diaphragmatic injuries are rare [Table 1], they have been reported in a variety of upper abdominal laparoscopic procedures.,, In one series of laparoscopic splenic procedures, the incidence of diaphragm injuries was noted to be approximately 0.9%. In abdominal urologic laparoscopy, the incidence was cited at about 1.1%. Overt diaphragmatic injuries are usually identified intraoperatively by direct visualization of the pleural space while less obvious injuries may be suggested by the presence of diaphragmatic billowing under decreased pneumoperitoneum, also known as the “floppy diaphragm sign.”, Excessive air bubbles during upper abdominal irrigation, diminished ipsilateral breath sounds, decreased arterial oxygen saturation, elevated airway pressures, and acute rise in end-tidal CO2 may also be suggestive of a diaphragmatic injury, especially if present in conjunction with a clinically relevant pneumothorax.,
Management of diaphragmatic injuries spans an entire spectrum of considerations, from close observation to surgical repair, depending on injury location, laterality (e.g., left versus right) and size (e.g., small puncture versus visible rent)., Tube thoracostomy placement (or even needle chest decompression) may be indicated if hemodynamic instability develops or a large pneumothorax (>20% hemithorax volume) is evident on imaging., However, most patients remain hemodynamically stable and a decompressive intervention is not required., Most patients can safely tolerate a laparoscopic repair with closure of the defect in a primary or mesh-assisted fashion (including directed evacuation of pleural gas).,, Diaphragm repair is usually performed under decreased pneumoperitoneum (≤10 mmHg) and may be deferred toward the end of the case, provided that the patient remains hemodynamically stable., From an educational perspective, the optimal approach to educate trainees about risk factors, recognition, and management of diaphragmatic injuries is the combination of targeted didactics and high-fidelity simulation.,, Due to the fact that direct suture repair can adequately address the majority of laparoscopic diaphragmatic injuries identified at the time of surgery, the development of intracorporeal suturing skills is important in this domain.,,
| Port-Site Hernias|| |
Port-site hernias are among the more common complications of laparoscopy [Table 1] and [Figure 2], [Figure 3]. They usually contain bowel or omentum and involve a fascial defect located at a previous laparoscopic trocar site. The incidence of port-site hernias is estimated to be between 0.74% and 1.7%, with the umbilicus being the most common site., Risk factors include elevated body-mass index, medical comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, long-term corticosteroid use), malnutrition, wound infection, as well as technical factors related to trocar placement and closure techniques. Clinical presentation may include mild discomfort, bowel obstruction, or strangulation of hernia contents., Some asymptomatic hernias may be found incidentally on advanced imaging (e.g., computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging).
|Figure 2: Computed tomography image showing an umbilical port-site hernia containing omentum. Source: Singh P, et al. J Minim Access Surg 2006;2:29-30. Used under the terms of the creative commons attribution license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited|
Click here to view
|Figure 3: Computed tomographic images showing a left lower quadrant incisional hernia (circled) originating from a 5-mm appendectomy laparoscopic incision. The patient initially neglected symptoms of intermittent left lower quadrant pain, leading to significant enlargement of the hernia defect over time. Computed tomographic reconstructions demonstrate the extent of the hernia (circled). The hernia was repaired laparoscopically, via placement of a synthetic hernia mesh|
Click here to view
Larger port sizes, trocar location, longer case duration, failure to properly close trocar sites, and the need for extension of the wound during specimen extraction are among the technical factors associated with port-site hernias., It is generally accepted that fascial defects >10 mm require dedicated closure; however, pediatric port sites as small as 3 mm can be associated with herniation., Ideally, port-site closure should be accomplished under direct visualization, and the closure should be confirmed to be “air tight” under active pneumoperitoneum conditions. Regardless of closure method, adequate suture of fascia is mandatory. At times, trocar passage through the tissues of the anterior abdominal wall may be associated with a direct vessel injury, resulting in active bleeding that requires either surgery or endovascular angioembolization [Figure 4]. With increasing availability of high-fidelity simulators, laparoscopic tasks associated with high complication risk, including trocar placement and closure, can be realistically depicted in virtual reality environments., When bundled with targeted didactic sessions, the ability to recreate highly realistic surgical scenarios may help reduce the incidence of port-site hernias and related morbidity.,,
|Figure 4: Large left anterior abdominal wall intramuscular hematoma associated with laparoscopic port placement. Note active contrast extravasation in the medial-central portion of the hematoma on contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging|
Click here to view
| Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy: Better, but not Perfect|| |
The increasing interest in robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) deserves a special mention. While RAL may be the wave of the future, it is not without complications. Shields et al. reviewed the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience from 2003 to 2012 and found that there were 455 injuries, 28 deaths, and 177 malfunctions (including 50 “adverse events”) associated with robotic cases. Of interest, injury rates may have risen over time. Zakhari et al. noted that despite greater costs, patient undergoing robotic-assisted hysterectomy for uterine cancer had shorter hospital admissions, with similar postoperative morbidity and mortality. Weinberg et al. reviewed 14,275 patients with localized renal tumors of whom 70% had robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy and 30% underwent laparoscopic cryoablation. There were no differences between the groups in terms of perioperative complications, transfusions, length of stay, or median cost. Moreover, surgical technique was not predictive of complications. Kader et al. reported on 200 patients undergoing either robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (n = 100) or open radical cystectomy (n = 100). They found comparable outcomes but with fewer total complications in the RAL. Regarding radical prostatectomy procedures, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the rate of complications was similar with either robot-assisted resection or laparoscopic resection, although RAL compared favorably in terms of blood loss and transfusion rates. In terms of specific training approaches, highly realistic 3D robotic surgery simulators are now available for trainees.,, When combined with didactic sessions and training modules that focus on complications specific to various robotic-assisted operations, such high-fidelity, virtual reality resources may prove helpful in both reducing morbidity and improving clinical handling of complications.,
| Education and Prevention: A summary|| |
Given the ubiquitous nature of laparoscopy, one of the most important ways to reduce the occurrence of adverse events is the emphasis on prevention and education regarding both technical and nontechnical surgical skills., The process starts during residency training, with initiatives such as fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery., Equally important is the development of cognitive skills required to appropriately recognize and deal with complications, including the ability to accept mistakes, communicate effectively, perform honest self-reflection, and avoid costly delays in management of resultant morbidity., Additional training should include didactics on team safety, principles of surgical energy device use, simulation-based experience, and laparoscopic tissue-handling.,,, Providers who maintain a certain level of skills tend to have better outcomes and fewer complications. The emergence of advanced, high-fidelity, virtual reality simulation techniques is a potentially important step toward providing the much needed skills maintenance in various “low-volume, high-impact” operative and nonoperative settings.,,,, Of course, validation of associated benefits will be required prior to more widespread deployment of such technologies. Emphasis should be placed by departmental and divisional surgical leadership on ensuring adequate laparoscopic case volumes.,, Finally, complications associated with laparoscopy should be discussed on a regular basis at morbidity and mortality conferences, as well as other established performance/quality improvement platforms.,
| Conclusion|| |
As minimally invasive surgery volumes continue to grow and the associated breadth of surgical indications expands, we must ensure that surgeons are adequately trained in operative techniques, cognitive (nontechnical) skills, safety protocols, and the management of complications associated with laparoscopy. Greater awareness is needed among surgeons and trainees regarding a number of important, commonly encountered complications unique to laparoscopic surgery and related areas of expertise. Among key factors important to morbidity reduction are adequate patient selection, meticulous attention to surgical technique, awareness of potential complications, and high-quality team interactions that focus on patient safety throughout the perioperative period. Of critical importance is the surgeon's ability to promptly recognize complications, readily accept the proximal connection between potential surgical errors and morbidity, and institute appropriate remedies to avoid further iatrogenic harm. Regardless of their role in the operating room, members of minimally invasive surgery teams must be familiar with all potentially life-threatening complications of laparoscopy and be competent in promptly identifying and managing such events. The same team safety principles also apply to identifying complications in the postoperative period.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Petersen RH, Hansen HJ. Learning curve associated with VATS lobectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012;1:47-50.
Khatuja R, Jain G, Mehta S, Arora N, Juneja A, Goel N. Changing trends in use of laparoscopy: A clinical audit. Minim Invasive Surg 2014;2014:562785.
Sundbom M, Hedberg J. Use of laparoscopy in gastrointestinal surgery in Sweden 1998-2014: A nationwide study. Scand J Surg 2016. pii: 1457496916630645.
Johnson TG, Hope WW. Laparoscopic approaches in general surgery: Is there anything new? In: Technological Advances in Surgery, Trauma and Critical Care. New York, new York: Springer; 2015. p. 363-75.
Henny C, Hofland J. Laparoscopic surgery: Pitfalls due to anesthesia, positioning, and pneumoperitoneum. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1163-71.
Kindel T, Latchana N, Swaroop M, Chaudhry UI, Noria SF, Choron RL, et al.
Laparoscopy in trauma: An overview of complications and related topics. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2015;5:196-205.
] [Full text]
Jansen FW, Kapiteyn K, Trimbos-Kemper T, Hermans J, Trimbos JB. Complications of laparoscopy: A prospective multicentre observational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:595-600.
Joshi GP. Complications of laparoscopy. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2001;19:89-105.
Härkki-Siren P, Sjöberg J, Kurki T. Major complications of laparoscopy: A follow-up Finnish study. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:94-8.
Parsons JK, Varkarakis I, Rha KH, Jarrett TW, Pinto PA, Kavoussi LR. Complications of abdominal urologic laparoscopy: Longitudinal five-year analysis. Urology 2004;63:27-32.
Karthik S, Augustine AJ, Shibumon MM, Pai MV. Analysis of laparoscopic port site complications: A descriptive study. J Minim Access Surg 2013;9:59-64.
Perugini RA, Callery MP. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. In: Holzheimer RG, Mannick JA, editors. Surgical Treatment: Evidence-based and Problem-oriented. Munich: Zuckschwerdt; 2001.
Perrin M, Fletcher A. Laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 2004;4:107-10.
Rogers DA, Elstein AS, Bordage G. Improving continuing medical education for surgical techniques: Applying the lessons learned in the first decade of minimal access surgery. Ann Surg 2001;233:159-66.
Frede T, Klein J, Teber D, Rassweiler J. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy – Impact of training and supervision. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2005;14:104-8.
Moore DK, Moore RG. Laparoscopic training-basic skills to complex skills. Minimally Invasive Uro-Oncologic Surgery. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis; 2005. p. 99.
Steigerwald SN, Park J, Hardy KM, Gillman LM, Vergis AS. Does laparoscopic simulation predict intraoperative performance? A comparison between the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery and LapVR evaluation metrics. Am J Surg 2015;209:34-9.
Overby DW, Watson RA. Hand motion patterns of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery certified and noncertified surgeons. Am J Surg 2014;207:226-30.
Park AE, Lee TH. Evolution of minimally invasive surgery and its impact on surgical residency training. In: Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 11-22.
Sparks D, Chase D, Lee W. An inexpensive solution for laparoscopic simulation. OPUS 2008;12:1-3.
Paschold M, Huber T, Zeissig S, Lang H, Kneist W. Management of bleeding complications in virtual reality laparoscopy. International Surgery. 2016 Jun 7 [Epub ahead of print].
Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M, Hananel D, Heydenburg M, Issenberg B, et al.
Training and simulation for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19 Suppl 2:i34-43.
Munro MG. Surgical simulation: Where have we come from? Where are we now? Where are we going? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012;19:272-83.
Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, et al.
Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2004;240:518-25.
Schreuder HW, van Dongen KW, Roeleveld SJ, Schijven MP, Broeders IA. Face and construct validity of virtual reality simulation of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:540.e1-8.
Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, et al.
Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;338:b1802.
Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 2004;91:146-50.
Targarona EM, Espert JJ, Balagué C, Piulachs J, Artigas V, Trias M. Splenomegaly should not be considered a contraindication for laparoscopic splenectomy. Ann Surg 1998;228:35-9.
Tranchart H, Di Giuro G, Lainas P, Roudie J, Agostini H, Franco D, et al.
Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A matched-pair comparative study. Surg Endosc 2010;24:1170-6.
Karayiannakis AJ, Polychronidis A, Perente S, Botaitis S, Simopoulos C Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with previous upper or lower abdominal surgery. Surg Endosc 2004;18:97-101.
Morino M, Cavuoti G, Miglietta C, Giraudo G, Simone P. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in cirrhosis: Contraindication or privileged indication? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2000;10:360-3.
Marks JH, Kawun UB, Hamdan W, Marks G. Redefining contraindications to laparoscopic colorectal resection for high-risk patients. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1899-904.
O'Boyle C, Kapadia CR, Sedman PC, Brough WA, Royston CMS. Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17:1905-9.
Gumbs AA, Gayet B, Gagner M. Laparoscopic liver resection: When to use the laparoscopic stapler device. HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:296-303.
Farinella E, Cirocchi R, La Mura F, Morelli U, Cattorini L, Delmonaco P, et al.
Feasibility of laparoscopy for small bowel obstruction. World J Emerg Surg 2009;4:3.
Schöb OM, Allen DC, Benzel E, Curet MJ, Adams MS, Baldwin NG, et al.
A comparison of the pathophysiologic effects of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and helium pneumoperitoneum on intracranial pressure. Am J Surg 1996;172:248-53.
Sagiv R, Debby A, Sadan O, Malinger G, Glezerman M, Golan A. Laparoscopic surgery for extrauterine pregnancy in hemodynamically unstable patients. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8:529-32.
Mowafi HA, Al-Ghamdi A, Rushood A. Intraocular pressure changes during laparoscopy in patients anesthetized with propofol total intravenous anesthesia versus isoflurane inhaled anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2003;97:471-4.
Orlando R 3rd
, Crowell KL. Laparoscopy in the critically ill. Surg Endosc 1997;11:1072-4.
Kraut EJ, Anderson JT, Safwat A, Barbosa R, Wolfe BM. Impairment of cardiac performance by laparoscopy in patients receiving positive end-expiratory pressure. Arch Surg 1999;134:76-80.
Wongworawat MD, Aitken DR, Robles AE, Garberoglio C. The impact of prior intra-abdominal surgery on laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 1994;60:763-6.
Léon EL, Metzger A, Tsiotos GG, Schlinkert RT, Sarr MG. Laparoscopic management of small bowel obstruction: Indications and outcome. J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:132-40.
Halpern NB. Access problems in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Postoperative adhesions, obesity, and liver disorders. Semin Laparosc Surg 1998;5:92-106.
Conron RW Jr., Abbruzzi K, Cochrane SO, Sarno AJ, Cochrane PJ. Laparoscopic procedures in pregnancy. Am Surg 1999;65:259-63.
Cohen-Kerem R, Railton C, Oren D, Lishner M, Koren G. Pregnancy outcome following non-obstetric surgical intervention. Am J Surg 2005;190:467-73.
Corneille MG, Gallup TM, Bening T, Wolf SE, Brougher C, Myers JG, et al.
The use of laparoscopic surgery in pregnancy: Evaluation of safety and efficacy. Am J Surg 2010;200:363-7.
Guidelines Committee of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Yumi H. Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and use of laparoscopy for surgical problems during pregnancy: This statement was reviewed and approved by the Board of Governors of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), September 2007. It was prepared by the SAGES Guidelines Committee. Surg Endosc 2008;22:849-61.
Lemaire BM, van Erp WF. Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Surg Endosc 1997;11:15-8.
Ott DE. Microbial colonization of laparoscopic gas delivery systems: A qualitative analysis. JSLS 1997;1:325-9.
Tsereteli Z, Terry ML, Bowers SP, Spivak H, Archer SB, Galloway KD, et al.
Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2002;195:173-9.
Hsieh CH. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2003;13:5-9.
Beebe DS, McNevin MP, Crain JM, Letourneau JG, Belani KG, Abrams JA, et al.
Evidence of venous stasis after abdominal insufflation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993;176:443-7.
Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J, Jaeschke R, Malbrain ML, De Keulenaer B, et al.
Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: Updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:1190-206.
Bardoczky GI, Engelman E, Levarlet M, Simon P. Ventilatory effects of pneumoperitoneum monitored with continuous spirometry. Anaesthesia 1993;48:309-11.
Gutiérrez A, Argüelles M. Anesthetic considerations in laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias. In: Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair. Paris, France: Springer; 2003. p. 213-31.
Cunningham AJ, Turner J, Rosenbaum S, Rafferty T. Transoesophageal echocardiographic assessment of haemodynamic function during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 1993;70:621-5.
Johannsen G, Andersen M, Juhl B. The effect of general anaesthesia on the haemodynamic events during laparoscopy with CO2-insufflation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1989;33:132-6.
O'Leary E, Hubbard K, Tormey W, Cunningham AJ. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Haemodynamic and neuroendocrine responses after pneumoperitoneum and changes in position. Br J Anaesth 1996;76:640-4.
Sietses C, von Blomberg ME, Eijsbouts QA, Beelen RH, Berends FJ, Cuesta MA. The influence of CO2 versus helium insufflation or the abdominal wall lifting technique on the systemic immune response. Surg Endosc 2002;16:525-8.
Lee SW, Southall JC, Gleason NR, Huang EH, Bessler M, Whelan RL. Time course of differences in lymphocyte proliferation rates after laparotomy vs CO(2) insufflation. Surg Endosc 2000;14:145-8.
Fuentes JM, Hanly EJ, Aurora AR, De Maio A, Shih SP, Marohn MR, et al.
CO2 abdominal insufflation pretreatment increases survival after a lipopolysaccharide-contaminated laparotomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:32-8.
Hasel R, Arora SK, Hickey DR. Intraoperative complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anaesth 1993;40:459-64.
Chien GL, Soifer BE. Pharyngeal emphysema with airway obstruction as a consequence of laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy. Anesth Analg 1995;80:201-3.
Baggish MS, Lee WK, Miro SJ, Dacko L, Cohen G. Complications of laparoscopic sterilization. Comparison of 2 methods. Obstet Gynecol 1979;54:54-9.
Bajwa SJ, Singh A, Abbey R. Accidental displacement of endotracheal tube into esophagus complicating laparoscopic surgery. Int J Health Allied Sci 2012;1:33. [Full text]
Gan TJ, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, Kovac A, Kranke P, Meyer TA, et al.
Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 2014;118:85-113.
Karanicolas PJ, Smith SE, Kanbur B, Davies E, Guyatt GH. The impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2008;248:751-62.
Singh PM, Kaur M, Trikha A. Virtual reality in anesthesia “simulation”. Anesth Essays Res 2012;6:134-9. [Full text]
Green M, Tariq R, Green P. Improving patient safety through simulation training in anesthesiology: Where are we? Anesthesiol Res Pract 2016;2016:4237523.
Bano J, Hostettler A, Nicolau SA, Cotin S, Doignon C, Wu HS, et al
. Simulation of pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery planning. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.
Ahmad G, O'Flynn H, Duffy JM, Phillips K, Watson A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD006583.
Ahmad G, Duffy JM, Watson AJ. Laparoscopic entry techniques and complications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;99:52-5.
Merlin TL, Hiller JE, Maddern GJ, Jamieson GG, Brown AR, Kolbe A. Systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of methods used to establish pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 2003;90:668-79.
Jansen FW, Kolkman W, Bakkum EA, de Kroon CD, Trimbos-Kemper TC, Trimbos JB. Complications of laparoscopy: An inquiry about closed- versus open-entry technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:634-8.
Molloy D, Kaloo PD, Cooper M, Nguyen TV. Laparoscopic entry: A literature review and analysis of techniques and complications of primary port entry. Aust N
Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;42:246-54.
Rassweiler J, Klein J, Teber D, Schulze M, Frede T. Mechanical simulators for training for laparoscopic surgery in urology. J Endourol 2007;21:252-62.
Westwood J. Parametric modeling and simulation of trocar insertion. Vol. 119. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 14: Accelerating Change in Healthcare: Next Medical Toolkit; 2006. p. 252.
Bonjer HJ, Hazebroek EJ, Kazemier G, Giuffrida MC, Meijer WS, Lange JF. Open versus closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 1997;84:599-602.
Hashizume M, Sugimachi K. Needle and trocar injury during laparoscopic surgery in Japan. Surg Endosc 1997;11:1198-201.
Gottlieb A, Sprung J, Zheng XM, Gagner M. Massive subcutaneous emphysema and severe hypercarbia in a patient during endoscopic transcervical parathyroidectomy using carbon dioxide insufflation. Anesth Analg 1997;84:1154-6.
Murdock CM, Wolff AJ, Van Geem T. Risk factors for hypercarbia, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum during laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:704-9.
Lau KY. Pneumomediastinum caused by subcutaneous emphysema in the shoulder. A rare complication of arthroscopy. Chest 1993;103:1606-7.
Hawasli A. Spontaneous resolution of massive laparoscopy-associated pneumothorax: The case of the bulging diaphragm and review of the literature. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2002;12:77-82.
Joris JL, Chiche JD, Lamy ML. Pneumothorax during laparoscopic fundoplication: Diagnosis and treatment with positive end-expiratory pressure. Anesth Analg 1995;81:993-1000.
Mangar D, Kirchhoff GT, Leal JJ, Laborde R, Fu E. Pneumothorax during laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Can J Anaesth 1994;41:854-6.
Reid DB, Winning T, Bell G. Pneumothorax during laparoscopic dissection of the diaphragmatic hiatus. Br J Surg 1993;80:670.
Weber A, Garteiz D, Esquinca T, Hurtado C, Weber GR, Rojas O, et al.
Laparoscopic repair of pleural laceration produced during truncal vagotomy: Case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 1999;9:234-8.
Rankin JM, Silbert PL, Yadava OP, Hankey GJ, Stewart-Wynne EG. Mechanism of stroke complicating cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. Aust N
Z J Med 1994;24:154-60.
Mao M, Hughes R, Papadimos TJ, Stawicki SP. Complications of chest tubes: A focused clinical synopsis. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2015;21:376-86.
Wernick B, Hon HH, Mubang RN, Cipriano A, Hughes R, Rankin DD, et al.
Complications of needle thoracostomy: A comprehensive clinical review. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2015;5:160-9.
] [Full text]
Togal T, Gulhas N, Cicek M, Teksan H, Ersoy O. Carbon dioxide pneumothorax during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1242.
Freeman KM, Thompson SF, Allely EB, Sobel AL, Stansfield SA, Pugh WM. A virtual reality patient simulation system for teaching emergency response skills to U.S. Navy medical providers. Prehosp Disaster Med 2001;16:3-8.
Cobb WS, Fleishman HA, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Heniford BT. Gas embolism during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005;15:387-90.
Bazin JE, Gillart T, Rasson P, Conio N, Aigouy L, Schoeffler P. Haemodynamic conditions enhancing gas embolism after venous injury during laparoscopy: A study in pigs. Br J Anaesth 1997;78:570-5.
Wenham TN, Graham D. Venous gas embolism: An unusual complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Minim Access Surg 2009;5:35-6.
Shulman D, Aronson HB. Capnography in the early diagnosis of carbon dioxide embolism during laparoscopy. Can Anaesth Soc J 1984;31:455-9.
Gordy S, Rowell S. Vascular air embolism. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2013;3:73-6.
] [Full text]
Webber S, Andrzejowski J, Francis G. Gas embolism in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth CEPD Rev 2002;2:53-7.
Endsley MR. Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Volume 32, Issue 2, 1988:97-101.
Tien G, Atkins MS, Zheng B, Swindells C. Measuring situation awareness of surgeons in laparoscopic training. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications. ACM; 2010:149-152.
El Boghdady M, Tang B, Alijani A. The effect of a performance-based intra-procedural checklist on a simulated emergency laparoscopic task in novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 2016 Sep 1:1-5 [Epub ahead of print].
Lighthall GK, Barr J, Howard SK, Gellar E, Sowb Y, Bertacini E, et al.
Use of a fully simulated intensive care unit environment for critical event management training for internal medicine residents. Crit Care Med 2003;31:2437-43.
Gaba DM, et al
. Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource management (ACRM): A decade of experience. Simul Gaming 2001;32:175-93.
Nordestgaard AG, Bodily KC, Osborne RW Jr., Buttorff JD. Major vascular injuries during laparoscopic procedures. Am J Surg 1995;169:543-5.
Geers J, Holden C. Major vascular injury as a complication of laparoscopic surgery: A report of three cases and review of the literature. Am Surg 1996;62:377-9.
Mechchat A, Bagan P. Management of major vascular complications of laparoscopic surgery. J Visc Surg 2010;147:e145-53.
Yuen PM, Rogers MS. The use of an Atad Ripener Device in the management of inferior epigastric artery injury during operative laparoscopy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995;74:645-6.
Splinter KL, Cook CL. Inferior epigastric artery pseudoaneurysm following trocar injury. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012;19:393-5.
Saville LE, Woods MS. Laparoscopy and major retroperitoneal vascular injuries (MRVI). Surg Endosc 1995;9:1096-100.
Biffl WL, Leppaniemi A. Management guidelines for penetrating abdominal trauma. World J Surg 2015;39:1373-80.
Wartman SM, Rowe VL, Huang SY. Vascular injuries in the abdomen. In: Essentials of Vascular Surgery for the General Surgeon. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 213-22.
Adjei Boachie J, Smith-Singares E. Sampson's artery hemorrhage after inguinal hernia repair: Second case reported. Case Rep Surg 2016;2016:2534037.
Eklund A, Rudberg C, Smedberg S, Enander LK, Leijonmarck CE, Osterberg J, et al.
Short-term results of a randomized clinical trial comparing Lichtenstein open repair with totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 2006;93:1060-8.
Bendavid R. Complications of groin hernia surgery. Surg Clin North Am 1998;78:1089-103.
Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N. Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: A review of the literature. Surgery 2006;139:140-9.
Marshall NE, Vanderhoeven J, Eden KB, Segel SY, Guise JM. Impact of simulation and team training on postpartum hemorrhage management in non-academic centers. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015;28:495-9.
Llarena NC, Shah AB, Milad MP. Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:1407-17.
Birns MT. Inadvertent instrumental perforation of the colon during laparoscopy: Nonsurgical repair. Gastrointest Endosc 1989;35:54-6.
Meikle SF, Nugent EW, Orleans M. Complications and recovery from laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:304-11.
Tulikangas PK, Smith T, Falcone T, Boparai N, Walters MD. Gross and histologic characteristics of laparoscopic injuries with four different energy sources. Fertil Steril 2001;75:806-10.
Wu MP, Ou CS, Chen SL, Yen EY, Rowbotham R. Complications and recommended practices for electrosurgery in laparoscopy. Am J Surg 2000;179:67-73.
Lam A, Kaufman Y, Khong SY, Liew A, Ford S, Condous G. Dealing with complications in laparoscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009;23:631-46.
Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, et al.
Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 2004;135:21-7.
Pansadoro A, Curto F, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, Gaston R, Piechaud T. Teaching laparoscopy: The new challenge. BJU Int 2007;99:726-7.
Tucker RD, Voyles CR. Laparoscopic electrosurgical complications and their prevention. AORN J 1995;62:51-3, 55, 58-9.
Soong YK, Yu HT, Wang CJ, Lee CL, Huang HY. Urinary tract injury in laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:600-5.
Ko JH, Choi JS, Bae J, Lee WM, Koh AR, Boo H, et al.
Safety of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy for women with anterior wall adherence after cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2015;58:501-6.
Saidi MH, Sadler RK, Vancaillie TG, Akright BD, Farhart SA, White AJ. Diagnosis and management of serious urinary complications after major operative laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:272-6.
Kocot A, Gerharz EW, Riedmiller H. Urological complications of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A case series. Hernia 2011;15:583-6.
Levy BF, De Guara J, Willson PD, Soon Y, Kent A, Rockall TA. Bladder injuries in emergency/expedited laparoscopic surgery in the absence of previous surgery: A case series. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012;94:e118-20.
Meyer A, Blanc P, Balique JG, Kitamura M, Juan RT, Delacoste F, et al.
Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: Twenty-seven serious complications after 4565 consecutive operations. Rev Col Bras Cir 2013;40:32-6.
Orlando R, Palatini P, Lirussi F. Needle and trocar injuries in diagnostic laparoscopy under local anesthesia: What is the true incidence of these complications? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2003;13:181-4.
Ostrzenski A, Ostrzenska KM. Bladder injury during laparoscopic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1998;53:175-80.
Schäfer M, Lauper M, Krähenbühl L. Trocar and veress needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 2001;15:275-80.
Rosenblatt PL. Laparoscopy: Ureteric injury. In Coomarasamy A, Shafi MI, Davila GW, and Chan KK, Eds: Gynecologic and Obstetric Surgery: Challenges and Management Options. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 221-223.
Palaniappa NC, Telem DA, Ranasinghe NE, Divino CM. Incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injury after laparoscopic colectomy. Arch Surg 2012;147:267-71.
Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Lay F, Barret E, Doublet JD, et al.
Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The Montsouris 3-year experience. J Urol 2002;167:51-6.
Chahin F, Dwivedi AJ, Paramesh A, Chau W, Agrawal S, Chahin C, et al.
The implications of lighted ureteral stenting in laparoscopic colectomy. JSLS 2002;6:49-52.
Kuno K, Menzin A, Kauder HH, Sison C, Gal D. Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in gynecologic surgery. Urology 1998;52:1004-8.
Oh BR, Kwon DD, Park KS, Ryu SB, Park YI, Presti JC Jr. Late presentation of ureteral injury after laparoscopic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:337-9.
Grainger DA, Soderstrom RM, Schiff SF, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH, Diamond MP. Ureteral injuries at laparoscopy: Insights into diagnosis, management, and prevention. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:839-43.
Tulikangas PK, Gill IS, Falcone T. Laparoscopic repair of ureteral injuries. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8:259-62.
Aron M, Colombo JR Jr., Turna B, Stein RJ, Haber GP, Gill IS. Diaphragmatic repair and/or reconstruction during upper abdominal urological laparoscopy. J Urol 2007;178:2444-50.
Hosogi H, Lingohr P, Galetin T, Sakai Y, Saad S. Right diaphragm injury: An unusual complication in single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2011;21:e143-4.
Shimomatsuya T, Horiuchi T. Laparoscopic splenectomy for treatment of patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Comparison with open splenectomy. Surg Endosc 1999;13:563-6.
Rescorla FJ, West KW, Engum SA, Grosfeld JL. Laparoscopic splenic procedures in children: Experience in 231 children. Ann Surg 2007;246:683-7.
Voyles CR, Madden B. The “floppy diaphragm” sign with laparoscopic-associated pneumothorax. JSLS 1998;2:71-3.
D'Souza N, Bruce JL, Clarke DL, Laing GL. Laparoscopy for occult left-sided diaphragm injury following penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma is both diagnostic and therapeutic. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2016;26:e5-8.
Hammer MM, Raptis DA, Mellnick VM, Bhalla S, Raptis CA. Traumatic injuries of the diaphragm: Overview of imaging findings and diagnosis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2016 Sep 19:1-8 [Epub ahead of print].
Castillo OA, Vitagliano G, Moreno M, Diaz MA, Cortes O. Management of diaphragmatic injury during transperitoneal laparoscopic urological procedures. Int Braz J Urol 2007;33:323-8.
Msezane LP, Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Schade GR, Shalhav AL. Case report: Conservative management of a large capnothorax following laparoscopic renal surgery. J Endourol 2007;21:1445-7.
Gonzalez CM, Batler RA, Feldman M, Rubenstein JN, Nadler RB, Schoor RA. Repair of a diaphragmatic injury during hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy using an onlay patch of polypropylene and polyglactin mesh. J Urol 2002;167:2512-3.
Potter SR, Kavoussi LR, Jackman SV. Management of diaphragmatic injury during laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2001;165:1203-4.
Del Pizzo JJ, Jacobs SC, Bishoff JT, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Pleural injury during laparoscopic renal surgery: Early recognition and management. J Urol 2003;169:41-4.
Britt RC, Scerbo MW, Montano M, Kennedy RA, Prytz E, Stefanidis D. Intracorporeal suturing: Transfer from Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery to cadavers results in substantial increase in mental workload. Surgery 2015;158:1428-33.
Murray JA, Demetriades D, Asensio JA, Cornwell EE rd, Velmahos GC, Belzberg H, et al.
Occult injuries to the diaphragm: Prospective evaluation of laparoscopy in penetrating injuries to the left lower chest. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187:626-30.
Tonouchi H, Ohmori Y, Kobayashi M, Kusunoki M. Trocar site hernia. Arch Surg 2004;139:1248-56.
Bunting DM. Port-site hernia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS 2010;14:490-7.
Owens M, Barry M, Janjua AZ, Winter DC. A systematic review of laparoscopic port site hernias in gastrointestinal surgery. Surgeon 2011;9:218-24.
Zhu J, Liu W. Laparoscopic trocar site hernia: A case report and. Int J Clin Exp Med 2016;9:1-8.
Reardon PR, Preciado A, Scarborough T, Matthews B, Marti JL. Hernia at 5-mm laparoscopic port site presenting as early postoperative small bowel obstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1999;9:523-5.
Christie MC, Manger JP, Khiyami AM, Ornan AA, Wheeler KM, Schenkman NS. Occult radiographically evident port-site hernia after robot-assisted urologic surgery: Incidence and risk factors. J Endourol 2016;30:92-6.
Bergemann JL, Hibbert ML, Harkins G, Narvaez J, Asato A. Omental herniation through a 3-mm umbilical trocar site: Unmasking a hidden umbilical hernia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2001;11:171-3.
Hussain A, Mahmood H, Singhal T, Balakrishnan S, Nicholls J, El-Hasani S. Long-term study of port-site incisional hernia after laparoscopic procedures. JSLS 2009;13:346-9.
Shields K, Minion L, Sumner D, Monk B. Ten year food and drug administration reporting of robot-assisted laparoscopy complications, deaths, and device malfunctions in gynecologic surgery. Gynecol Oncol 2014;135:402.
Zakhari A, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Gotlieb WH, Abenhaim HA. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomy for uterine cancer: A comparison of costs and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:665.e1-7.
Weinberg AC, Woldu SL, Wen T, Deibert CM, Korets R, Badani KK. Utilization and perioperative complications of laparoscopic cryoablation vs. robotic partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors. Int Braz J Urol 2015;41:473-85.
Kader AK, Richards KA, Krane LS, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy: Comparison of complications and perioperative oncological outcomes in 200 patients. BJU Int 2013;112:E290-4.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al
. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431-52.
Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, Jehl JP, Felblinger J, Bresler L, et al.
The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer(®) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2587-93.
Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, Guru KA, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, et al.
Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators – A systematic review. BJU Int 2013;111:194-205.
Smith R, Truong M, Perez M. Comparative analysis of the functionality of simulators of the da Vinci surgical robot. Surg Endosc 2015;29:972-83.
Davies E, Broderick-Villa G, Kim T, Begossi G, Horoupian R, Stanten S, et al
. Robotic bariatric surgery curriculum for surgical training in an accredited MIS and metabolic surgery fellowship program: Simulation, video based training and modular phased learning. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2016;12:S148.
Kiely DJ, Gotlieb WH, Jardon K, Lau S, Press JZ. Advancing surgical simulation in gynecologic oncology: Robotic dissection of a novel pelvic lymphadenectomy model. Simul Healthc 2015;10:38-42.
Dedy NJ, Bonrath EM, Ahmed N, Grantcharov TP. Structured training to improve nontechnical performance of junior surgical residents in the operating room: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2016;263:43-9.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al.
The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:187-96.
Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Fayez R, Fried GM. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room-a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg 2010;199:115-20.
Andreatta PB, Woodrum DT, Birkmeyer JD, Yellamanchilli RK, Doherty GM, Gauger PG, et al.
Laparoscopic skills are improved with LapMentor training: Results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 2006;243:854-60.
Tavris C, Aronson E. Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2008.
Luu S, Leung SO, Moulton CA. When bad things happen to good surgeons: Reactions to adverse events. Surg Clin North Am 2012;92:153-61.
Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondré K, Stanbridge D, et al.
A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2005;190:107-13.
Kim FJ, Chammas MF Jr., Gewehr E, Morihisa M, Caldas F, Hayacibara E, et al.
Temperature safety profile of laparoscopic devices: Harmonic ACE (ACE), Ligasure V (LV), and plasma trisector (PT). Surg Endosc 2008;22:1464-9.
Stawicki S, Galwankar SC, Papadimos TJ, Moffatt-Bruce SD. Fundamentals of Patient Safety in Medicine and Surgery. New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer Health (India) Pvt. Ltd.; 2014.
Feldman LS, Brunt LM, Fuchshuber P, Jones DB, Jones SB, Mischna J, et al.
Rationale for the fundamental use of surgical Energy™ (FUSE) curriculum assessment: Focus on safety. Surg Endosc 2013;27:4054-9.
Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 2004;79 10 Suppl:S70-81.
Kuhry E, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Hop WC, Veldkamp R, Cuesta MA, et al.
Impact of hospital case volume on short-term outcome after laparoscopic operation for colonic cancer. Surg Endosc 2005;19:687-92.
Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Lewin SN, et al.
Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:709-16.
Nguyen NT, Paya M, Stevens CM, Mavandadi S, Zainabadi K, Wilson SE. The relationship between hospital volume and outcome in bariatric surgery at academic medical centers. Ann Surg 2004;240:586-93.
Rosenfeld JC. Using the morbidity and mortality conference to teach and assess the ACGME general competencies. Curr Surg 2005;62:664-9.
Nishisaki A, Keren R, Nadkarni V. Does simulation improve patient safety? Self-efficacy, competence, operational performance, and patient safety. Anesthesiol Clin 2007;25:225-36.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]