How well do software assistants for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy meet surgeon information needs? A cognitive task analysis and literature review study.

Abstract

IntroductionIntraoperative software assistance is gaining increasing importance in laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. Within the user-centred development process of such systems, the first question to be asked is: What information does the surgeon need and when does he or she need it? In this article, we present an approach to investigate these surgeon information needs for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy and compare these needs to the relevant surgical computer assistance literature.Materials and methodsFirst, we conducted a literature-based hierarchical task analysis of the surgical procedure. This task analysis was taken as a basis for a qualitative in-depth interview study with nine experienced surgical urologists. The study employed a cognitive task analysis method to elicit surgeons' information needs during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Finally, a systematic literature search was conducted to review proposed software assistance solutions for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. The review focused on what information the solutions present to the surgeon and what phase of the surgery they aim to support.ResultsThe task analysis yielded a workflow description for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. During the subsequent interview study, we identified three challenging phases of the procedure, which may particularly benefit from software assistance. These phases are I. Hilar and vascular management, II. Tumour excision, and III. Repair of the renal defects. Between these phases, 25 individual challenges were found which define the surgeon information needs. The literature review identified 34 relevant publications, all of which aim to support the surgeon in hilar and vascular management (phase I) or tumour excision (phase II).ConclusionThe work presented in this article identified unmet surgeon information needs in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. Namely, our results suggest that future solutions should address the repair of renal defects (phase III) or put more focus on the renal collecting system as a critical anatomical structure.