Use of an automated endoscopic suturing device does not improve mental workload or time of intracorporeal suturing among surgical residents.

Automated endoscopic suturing devices offer no significant advantage over standard needle drivers for intracorporeal suturing in surgical residents.

This prospective study compared intracorporeal suturing performance between endoscopic needle drivers (END) and an automated endoscopic suturing device (ESD) among 10 veterinary surgical residents across four years of training at an academic teaching hospital. Participants completed two laparoscopic trainer trials using knotless barbed suture, with each technique preceded by a standardized instructional video provided seven days prior. Outcomes assessed included time to complete suturing, mental workload via the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), and blinded subjective suture quality scoring by three surgeons. No statistically significant differences were found between END and ESD in completion time (5.72 vs. 6.00 minutes; P = .76), NASA-TLX mental workload scores (44.60 vs. 44.33; P = .83), or suture quality scores (median 11 for both; P = .13). Notably, year of residency training significantly influenced suturing time for both techniques (P = .006), suggesting that experience rather than instrument type is the primary determinant of performance. The ESD offered no measurable advantage over conventional needle drivers in this ex vivo model. The authors conclude that surgical residents can effectively perform intracorporeal suturing with either instrument and recommend further investigation into the learning curves associated with each technique, particularly for novice surgeons. These findings have practical implications for residency training programs evaluating the cost-benefit of adopting automated suturing technology.

This summary was distilled by AI and may occasionally misinterpret data. Confirm critical details with the primary literature before clinical application.