AccScience Publishing / STI / Volume 46 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.36922/sti.0272
Submit to STI
Cite this article
7
Download
77
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Analyzing the Potential Benefits of a Novel Multifunctional Laparoscopic Surgical Device Prototype

Brett Parker*
Show Less
1 Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
STI 2026, 46(1), 0272 https://doi.org/10.36922/sti.0272
Received: 25 August 2025 | Revised: 17 October 2025 | Accepted: 20 October 2025 | Published online: 12 June 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

Background: Excessive laparoscopic instrument exchanges contribute to opera­tive inefficiency, workflow disruption, surgeon fatigue, and increased operating room (OR) costs during minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Multifunctional laparoscopic technologies may help address these limitations by reducing instrument exchanges and improving procedural efficiency.

Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and surgical device registries through February 2025 to evaluate evidence re­lated to operative time, instrument exchanges, surgeon ergonomics, workflow disrup­tions, complication risk, and OR costs in laparoscopic surgery. A novel multifunctional laparoscopic prototype capable of automated intracorporeal tip switching was analyzed. Simulated workflow modeling was performed using retrospective procedural data from a high-volume MIS practice to estimate the potential impact of the device on instrument exchanges, operative time, OR costs, and workflow efficiency across several common laparoscopic procedures.

Results: Published studies consistently demonstrated associations between prolonged operative duration, frequent instrument exchanges, surgeon fatigue, workflow inter­ruptions, and increased complication rates. Simulation modeling suggested that using a multifunctional prototype could reduce external instrument exchanges, depending on procedure complexity. The greatest modeled benefits were observed in longer and more technically complex procedures.

Conclusion: A multifunctional laparoscopic device with automated intracorporeal tool switching (Symphera) may improve operative workflow and reduce inefficiencies as­sociated with conventional laparoscopic instrument exchanges. While early simulation and preclinical data are promising, these findings are based on model projections and narrative synthesis of the literature. Prospective clinical studies are required to validate the safety, clinical effectiveness, ergonomic impact, and economic value of this investiga­tional technology before widespread adoption can be considered.

Keywords
Surgical innovation
New technology
Laparoscopy
Multifunctional device
Instrument exchanges
Funding
The author is a paid consultant for Symphera and received compensation related to the research and preparation of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
Brett Parker is a paid medical consul¬tant for Symphera, who provided gen¬eral support for the author’s time on the work, though had no interference with the author’s ability to analyze and inter¬pret the data.
References
  1. Fong AJ, Smith M, Langerman A. Efficiency improvement in the operating room. J Surg Res. 2016;204(2):371-383. doi: 10.1016/j. jss.2016.04.054

 

  1. Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC. Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):185- 192. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4954-2

 

  1. Mehta NY, Haluck RS, Frecker MI, Snyder AJ. Sequence and task analysis of instrument use in common laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(2):280-285. doi: 10.1007/ s004640080009

 

  1. Brock DL, inventor; Intuitive Surgical Opera­tions, Inc, assignee. Interchangeable instrument. US patent 6,860,878. March 1, 2005.

 

  1. Nelson CA, Miller DJ, Oleynikov D. Design meth­odology for a novel multifunction laparoscopic tool: engineering for surgeons’ needs. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;125:343-348.

 

  1. Pourghodrat A, Nelson CA, Oleynikov D. Hydraulic robotic surgical tool changing manip­ulator. J Med Device. 2017;11(1):110081. doi: 10.1115/1.4035548

 

  1. Frecker MI, Schadler J, Haluck RS, Culkar K, Dziedzic R. Laparoscopic multifunctional instruments: design and testing of initial proto­types. JSLS. 2005;9(1):105-112.

 

  1. Miller DJ, Nelson CA, Oleynikov D. Shortened OR time and decreased patient risk through use of a modular surgical instrument with artificial intelligence. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(5):1099-1105. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0321-2

 

  1. Clapp B, Marrero K, Corbett J, et al. Effect of operative times in bariatric surgery on outcomes: a matched analysis of the MBSAQIP database. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(6):4113-4122. doi: 10.1007/ s00464-023-09927-6

 

  1. Cheng H, Chen BP, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cam­eron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a system­atic review. Surg Infect. 2017;18(6):722-735. doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.089

 

  1. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understand­ing costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi: 10.1001/jama­surg.2017.6233

 

  1. Christou CD, Athanasiadou EC, Tooulias AI, Tzamalis A, Tsoulfas G. The process of estimating the cost of surgery: providing a practical frame­work for surgeons. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2022;37(4):1926-1940. doi: 10.1002/hpm.3431

 

  1. Nast K, Swords KA. Decreasing operating room costs via reduction of surgical instruments. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15(2):153.e1-153.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.01.013

 

  1. Poder TG, Harris P, Tetu M, et al. Real-time cost awareness in surgical disposables: a multispecialty pre-post trial. J Med Syst. 2025;49(1):25-29. doi: 10.1007/s10916-025-02160-9

 

  1. Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM, Neighorn C, Swans­trom LL, Hammill CW. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(10):3436-3443. doi: 10.1007/s00464- 018-06606-9

 

  1. Solaini L, Cavaliere D, Avanzolini A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(4):775-781. doi: 10.1007/ s11701-021-01312-6

 

  1. Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, et al. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and lapa­roscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and eco­nomic analyses. CADTH Technology Report No. 137. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011. https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK168912/

 

  1. Ielpo B, Podda M, Burdio F, et al; ROBO­COSTES Study Collaborators. Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for different surgical procedures: protocol for a prospective, multicentric study (ROBOCOSTES). Front Surg. 2022;9:866041. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.866041

 

  1. Shi Z. Laparoscopic vs open surgery: a compara­tive analysis of wound infection rates and recovery outcomes. Int Wound J. 2024;21(3):e14474. doi: 10.1111/iwj.14474

 

  1. Biswas P, Sikander S, Kulkarni P. Recent advances in robot-assisted surgical systems. Biomed Eng Adv. 2023;6:100109. doi: 10.1016/j. bea.2023.100109

 

  1. van Veelen MA, Meijer DW, Uijttewaal I, Goos­sens RHM, Snijders CJ, Kazemier G. Improve­ment of the laparoscopic needle holder based on new ergonomic guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(5):699-703. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002- 9186-y

 

  1. Campetella M, Ragonese M, Gandi C, et al. Surgeons’ fatigue in minimally invasive and open surgery: a review of the current liter­ature. Urologia. 2025;92(1):161-168. doi: 10.1177/03915603241300226

 

  1. Sharma S, Grantcharov T, Jung JJ. Non-tech­nical skills and device-related interruptions in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(8):4494-4500. doi: 10.1007/s00464- 020-07962-1

 

  1. Geryane MH, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A. Time-mo­tion analysis of operation theater time use during laparoscopic cholecystectomy by surgical spe­cialist residents. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(11):1597- 1600. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-8210-1

 

  1. Tranter-Entwistle I, Eglinton T, Hugh TJ, Connor S. Use of prospective video analysis to understand the impact of technical difficulty on operative pro­cess during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. HPB. 2022;24(12):2096-2103. doi: 10.1016/j. hpb.2022.07.013

 

  1. Stotz L, Joukhadar R, Hamza A, et al. Instru­ment usage in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a prospective clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(4):773-779. doi: 10.1007/s00404- 018-4867-5

 

  1. Jung JJ, Kashfi A, Sharma S, Grantcharov T. Char­acterization of device-related interruptions in minimally invasive surgery: need for intraopera­tive data and effective mitigation strategies. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(3):717-723. doi: 10.1007/ s00464-018-6254-5

 

  1. Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Dou­blet JD, Guillonneau B. Complications of tran­speritoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review of 1,311 procedures at a single center. J Urol. 2002;168(1):23-26. doi: 10.1016/S0022- 5347(05)64823-9

 

  1. den Boer KT, Straatsburg IH, Schellinger AV, de Wit LT, Dankelman J, Gouma DJ. Quantitative analysis of the functionality and efficiency of three surgical dissection techniques: a time-motion anal­ysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999;9(5):389- 395. doi: 10.1089/lap.1999.9.389

 

  1. Cheng H, Clymer JW, Qadeer RA, et al. Procedure costs associated with the use of Harmonic devices compared to conventional techniques in various surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analy­sis. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;10:399-412. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S164747

 

  1. Cepolina F, Razzoli R. Review of robotic sur­gery platforms and end effectors. J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):74. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023- 01781-x

 

  1. Boal M, Di Girasole CG, Tesfai F, et al. Evalua­tion status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(2):554-585. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023- 10554-4

 

  1. Patel N, Chaudhari K, Jyotsna G, Joshi JS. Sur­gical frontiers: a comparative review of robotics versus laparoscopy in gynecological interven­tions. Cureus. 2023;15(11):e49752. doi: 10.7759/ cureus.49752

 

  1. Pakataridis P, Daskalov M, Khan M, et al. Low-cost biodegradable 3-dimensional-printed lapa­roscopic simulator: a sustainable alternative for surgical training. Surgery. 2025;187:109624. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2025.109624
Next article in this issue
Share
Back to top
Surgical Technology International, Electronic ISSN: 1090-3941 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept