Study questions training value of automated endoscopic suturing
Bottom line
Automated endoscopic suturing didn’t shorten task time or ease mental workload for veterinary surgical residents in a new American Journal of Veterinary Research study comparing the device with standard endoscopic needle drivers during simulated intracorporeal suturing. In the crossover trial, residents at an academic teaching hospital completed two laparoscopic trainer exercises, separated by 14 days, after reviewing standardized instructional videos in advance. The study’s headline finding was straightforward: using the automated device was not associated with better speed or lower perceived cognitive burden than the conventional technique. (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary educators and residency programs, the study adds to a broader body of minimally invasive surgery training literature suggesting that technology alone may not solve one of laparoscopy’s hardest teaching problems: intracorporeal suturing. Reviews of veterinary laparoscopic education have emphasized that skills gains depend heavily on structured simulation, repetition, feedback, and competency-based assessment, rather than access to a single device. That matters for programs weighing whether higher-cost suturing platforms meaningfully improve resident training efficiency, especially when protected training time, faculty coaching, and validated simulation pathways remain persistent bottlenecks. (frontiersin.org)
What to watch: Watch for the full paper’s detailed performance metrics, sample size, and any subgroup findings that could clarify whether certain learners, tasks, or training stages still benefit from automated suturing platforms. (linkedin.com)
A new study in the American Journal of Veterinary Research found that an automated endoscopic suturing device did not improve either mental workload or completion time when veterinary surgical residents performed simulated intracorporeal suturing, compared with conventional endoscopic needle drivers. The work, by Francesca P. Solari, Rachel Williams, and J. Brad Case, addresses a practical question for minimally invasive surgery training: whether newer suturing technology can reduce the difficulty of one of laparoscopy’s most technically demanding skills. (linkedin.com)
That question lands in a training environment where minimally invasive surgery expectations keep rising, but resident exposure and formal skills assessment still vary widely. A 2022 review in Veterinary Surgery argued that veterinary residency programs have not broadly adopted the same structured minimally invasive surgery training systems seen in human medicine, despite evidence that simulation-based skills transfer to the operating room. Other reviews have similarly described intracorporeal suturing as a core advanced skill that benefits from repetitive, competency-based practice, expert feedback, and validated assessment tools. (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
According to the study abstract, surgical residents at an academic teaching hospital were invited to complete two intracorporeal suturing trials in a laparoscopic trainer, one using standard endoscopic needle drivers and one using an automated endoscopic suturing device, with 14 days between trials. Participants received a standardized descriptive video for each technique seven days before the relevant session. The article’s title and abstract summary indicate that neither mental workload nor suturing time improved with the automated device, despite its design goal of simplifying tissue approximation and needle handling. (linkedin.com)
That finding is notable because prior literature has often framed device innovation as one possible way to lower the barrier to advanced laparoscopy. A review of veterinary laparoscopic training described intracorporeal suturing as a persistent challenge and pointed to both technological advances and structured skills training as possible solutions. Another veterinary review noted that simulation programs such as the Veterinary Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills can support measurable skill acquisition and retention, but also highlighted the importance of repeated practice and expert oversight. In other words, the new AJVR paper fits a broader pattern: devices may help in some settings, but they don’t automatically replace deliberate training. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Industry and professional reaction appears limited so far, but there are signs the work is already circulating in the minimally invasive surgery community. A recent University of Florida–affiliated LinkedIn post from coauthor Rachel Williams highlighted Solari’s presentation of an abstract comparing laparoscopic suturing devices at the Veterinary Endoscopy Society annual meeting, suggesting the topic is drawing attention among surgeons focused on MIS education. At the same time, continuing education offerings in advanced laparoscopy continue to emphasize simulator-based intracorporeal suturing practice, underscoring that hands-on repetition remains central even as instrumentation evolves. (linkedin.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, especially residency directors, faculty surgeons, and hospital leaders, the study is a useful reminder to be cautious about assuming that a newer device will translate into faster learning or lower trainee strain. If an automated suturing platform doesn’t materially reduce time or workload in a simulated resident setting, its value proposition may depend more on specific clinical use cases, ergonomics, or expert preference than on broad educational benefit. That has implications for capital purchasing, curriculum design, and how programs allocate scarce training time. (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
The paper also speaks to a larger workforce and education issue. As minimally invasive procedures become more common in referral and specialty practice, training programs are under pressure to produce residents who are not just exposed to laparoscopy, but competent in advanced tasks like suturing. Evidence from veterinary education research suggests that structured simulation can build those skills, but it requires faculty engagement, assessment frameworks, and repeated opportunities to practice. For many programs, those fundamentals may deliver more educational return than adopting specialized suturing hardware alone. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
What to watch: The next thing to watch is whether the full AJVR publication prompts follow-up studies with larger cohorts, different experience levels, or procedure-specific endpoints, and whether educators begin using the findings to refine how they invest in MIS training tools versus simulation time and faculty coaching. (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)