Multicenter Comparative Study of Three "non-destructive" Methods of Detecting the Cleanliness of the Da Vinci Surgical Robotic Instrument

Overview

Journal Gland Surg

Publisher AME Publishing Company

Specialty Endocrinology

Date 2022 Jan 24

PMID 35070890

Authors

Aiqin Chen

Xiumei Zou

Yanhua Tan

Yanhan Chen

Xinru Ye

Shuqin Hao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The robotic instrument of the da Vinci surgical system determines the accuracy of robotic-assisted surgery, However, the most effective cleaning method of robotic equipment is a challenge for healthcare professionals. This study compared three da Vinci robot-assisted surgery manipulators to detect the effect of "non-destructive" testing of the cleaning effect by two different methods.

Methods: The post-surgical cleaning of the da Vinci robotic instruments in the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University and the Shenzhen Second People's Hospital was performed using two different processes from January 2019 to January 2020: manual joint automatic ultrasonic cleaning and automatic mechanical cleaning. The efficacy of visual estimation, the residual protein assay (quantitative) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) biological biofluorescence detection of the cleanliness of the mechanical instrument's work (distal working end) surface and the shaft's inner chamber was compared. If the cleaning effect of any position on the surface or inner cavity of the manipulator did not qualify, the entire robotic instrument was judged as disqualified.

Results: A total of 198 cases of da Vinci robotic instrument postoperative cleanliness data were collected. The qualifying rates of automatic ultrasonic cleaning were 96.97% by visual estimation, 93.94% by residual protein assay and 60.61% by ATP biological fluorescence detection. The respective rates for automatic mechanical cleaning were 100% by visual estimation, 90.91% by residual protein assay and 66.67% by ATP biological fluorescence detection.

Conclusions: The cleaning of the da Vinci robotic instrument detected by "non-destructive" residual protein assay or ATP biological fluorescence detection is more accurate than visual estimation.

Citing Articles

Fabrication and application of continuous douche for Da Vinci surgical robot arm.

Shi M, Zhang Q, Gao C, Song J, Shen C, Zhang X Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025; 410(1):82.

PMID: 40009230 PMC: 11865221. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-025-03635-6.

Evaluation of microbial occurrence in reusable robotic instruments for minimally invasive surgery: A pilot study.

Pelzer R, van der Zwet W, Eggen M, Beard A, Savelkoul P, Dirks J PLoS One. 2024; 19(4):e0300355.

PMID: 38573892 PMC: 10994333. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300355.

References

Alfa M, Fatima I, Olson N . The adenosine triphosphate test is a rapid and reliable audit tool to assess manual cleaning adequacy of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control. 2012; 41(3):249-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.03.015. View

Horgan S, Vanuno D . Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002; 11(6):415-9. DOI: 10.1089/10926420152761950. View

Baxter R, Baxter H, Campbell G, Grant K, Jones A, Richardson P . Quantitative analysis of residual protein contamination on reprocessed surgical instruments. J Hosp Infect. 2006; 63(4):439-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.03.011. View

Alfa M, Olson N, Murray B . Comparison of clinically relevant benchmarks and channel sampling methods used to assess manual cleaning compliance for flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Am J Infect Control. 2014; 42(1):e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.08.007. View

Fushimi R, Takashina M, Yoshikawa H, Kobayashi H, Okubo T, Nakata S . Comparison of adenosine triphosphate, microbiological load, and residual protein as indicators for assessing the cleanliness of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Am J Infect Control. 2012; 41(2):161-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.02.030. View

Masia M, Dettori M, Deriu G, Bellu S, Arcadu L, Azara A . ATP Bioluminescence for Assessing the Efficacy of the Manual Cleaning Procedure during the Reprocessing of Reusable Surgical Instruments. Healthcare (Basel). 2021; 9(3). PMC: 8003443. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9030352. View

Mak T, Lee J, Futaba K, Hon S, Ngo D, Ng S . Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review of current practice. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014; 6(6):184-93. PMC: 4058726. DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i6.184. View

Moran M . Evolution of robotic arms. J Robot Surg. 2014; 1(2):103-11. PMC: 4247431. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-006-0002-x. View

Lipscomb I, Sihota A, Keevil C . Comparison between visual analysis and microscope assessment of surgical instrument cleanliness from sterile service departments. J Hosp Infect. 2007; 68(1):52-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2007.08.009. View

10.

Saito Y, Yasuhara H, Murakoshi S, Komatsu T, Fukatsu K, Uetera Y . Challenging Residual Contamination of Instruments for Robotic Surgery in Japan. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 38(2):143-146. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2016.249. View

11.

Ghezzi T, Corleta O . 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016; 40(10):2550-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9. View

12.

Zhou Q, Huang J, Pan F, Li J, Liu Y, Hou Y . Operative outcomes and long-term survival of robotic-assisted segmentectomy for stage IA lung cancer compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020; 9(2):306-315. PMC: 7225141. DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-20-533. View

13.

Lewis T, Griffith C, Gallo M, Weinbren M . A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces. J Hosp Infect. 2008; 69(2):156-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.03.013. View

14.

Luo D, Liu Y, Zhu H, Li X, Gao W, Li X . The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(8):3368-3374. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07107-z. View