Frank Willem Jansen

Delft University of Technology

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Trends

Author Order

Document Type

Co-Authors

Jenny Dankelman

Delft University of Technology

Mathijs D. Blikkendaal

Leiden University

Trudy C.M. Trimbos-Kemper

Leiden University

Wendela Kolkman

Haga Hospital

Ben W. Mol

Academic Medical Center

Lukas van den Haak

Leiden University Medical Center

John J. van den Dobbelsteen

Delft University of Technology

Heleen van Dongen

Groene Hart Ziekenhuis

Tim Horeman

Delft University of Technology

Fokkedien H.M.P. Tummers

Leiden University Medical Center

Cooperative Institutions

Leiden University Medical Center

123

Leiden University

Radboud University Nijmegen

Amsterdam University Medical Centers

University of Amsterdam

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano

University Medical Center Utrecht

Plymouth Hospital

Trimbos Institute

Delft University of Technology

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Field

CHALLENGES IN TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL SKILLS

Magdalena K. Chmarra Sharon P. Rodrigues Frank Willem Jansen Jenny Dankelman

Training and objective assessment of surgical competency receives more and more attention from society and medical communities, and is an ongoing research challenge. For obvious reasons of patient safety, ethics, and cost-effectiveness, there is a need to shift the training and assessment from the operating theatre to a simulated environment (e.g. skills lab). This paper presents the state of the art on training and assessment of surgical skills in minimally invasive surgery, and discusses remaining challenges.

Invasive surgery

Competency Assessment

10.5220/0003289502610268

Cite

Citations (1)

The resident training curriculum

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks (2023)

Laurents P. S. Stassen Frank Willem Jansen

Modality (human–computer interaction)

Core curriculum

10.1007/978-90-368-2905-2_3

Cite

Citations (0)

Efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators in laparoscopic surgery: a review

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2015)

Lukas van den Haak Chantal C. J. Alleblas Theodoor E. Nieboer Johann Rhemrev Frank Willem Jansen

This review aims to objectively assess the efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators as reported in scientific literature. Furthermore, it evaluates as to which manipulator best suits which surgical procedure. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, COCHRANE, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Science Direct and the MAUDE database were searched. Technical information was retrieved from the manufacturers. 25 articles covering 10 uterine manipulators were found. Studies regarding implementation and use of manipulators are scarce; only two surveys were found comparing different manipulators. Moreover, clinical evidence proving the efficacy of manipulators with respect to prevention of complications, inherent to laparoscopic surgery, does not exist. The use of uterine manipulators is well established and it is clear that uterine manipulators offer the easiest way to handle the uterus during surgery. However, detailed information regarding efficacy and safety is scarce. Clinical evidence substantiating the assumed mechanism of prevention of ureter injuries was not found. Our review did not find the optimal manipulator. Some are more versatile than others and not all instruments are appropriate for all types of surgery. Therefore, gynecologists should choose the manipulator that best suits the type of surgery that is performed.

CINAHL

Manipulator (device)

Clinical efficacy

Scientific evidence

10.1007/s00404-015-3727-9

Cite

Citations (85)

Het overbruggen van de kloof tussen CAD en GIS : deel 1. : het probleem van de twee werelden

Frank Willem Jansen P.J.M. van Oosterom Joachim Stöter

Source

Cite

Citations (0)

Potential Risk and Safety Measures in Laparoscopy in COVID-19 Positive Patients

Surgical Innovation (2021)

Fokkedien H.M.P. Tummers Werner A. Draaisma Ahmet Demirkıran Tammo A. Brouwer Brunolf W. Lagerveld

Background. During the COVID-19 pandemic the question arises if laparoscopy, as an aerosol forming procedure, poses a potential risk for viral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to healthcare workers. Methods. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE. Articles reporting information regarding COVID-19 or other relevant viruses and laparoscopy, surgical smoke, aerosols and viral transmission were included. Results. Although aerosols produced during laparoscopy do not originate from the respiratory tract, the main transmission route of SARS-CoV-2, research did show SARS-CoV-2 to be present in other body fluids. The transmission risk via this route is however considered very low. As previous research showed potential viral transmission during laparoscopy for viruses that spread through contaminated body fluids, there might be a potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during laparoscopy, albeit considered very small. Conclusion. Due to the small risk compared to widely known benefits of laparoscopy, there is no reason to replace laparoscopy by laparotomy due to COVID-19 infection. To avoid the potential small risk of viral transmission, additional safety measures are advised.

Pandemic

10.1177/15533506211003527

Cite

Citations (17)

Training in Basic Laparoscopic Surgical Skills: Residents Opinion of the New Nintendo Wii-U Laparoscopic Simulator

Journal of surgical education (2016)

Evelien Overtoom Frank Willem Jansen Evert J. P. van Santbrink Steven E. Schraffordt Koops Sebastiaan Veersema

Demographics

Training System

10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.10.004

Cite

Citations (15)

Hysteroscopy and removal of endometrial polyps: A Dutch survey

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (2007)

Anne Timmermans Heleen van Dongen Ben W. Mol Sebastiaan Veersema Frank Willem Jansen

Polypectomy

Endometrial Polyp

Outpatient clinic

10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.05.016

Cite

Citations (38)

Intracorporeal Suturing: Economy of Instrument Movements Using a Box Trainer Model

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (2011)

Ellen Hiemstra Magdalena K. Chmarra Jenny Dankelman Frank Willem Jansen

Trainer

10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.003

Cite

Citations (33)

Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery

Surgical Endoscopy (2011)

Sharon P. Rodrigues Aurystella M. Wever Jenny Dankelman Frank Willem Jansen

This study aimed to identify the frequency of events in the different patient safety risk domains during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional surgery (CS). A convenience sample of gynecologic MIS and CS was observed. Events were observed and categorized into one of the predefined patient safety risk domains. A total of 53 procedures were observed: 26 CS and 27 MIS procedures. The general characteristics were comparable between the two groups. A large number of environmental events were observed, averaging one every 2.5 min. Technical events and events of an organizational nature occurred more often in MIS (P < 0.01) than in CS (P < 0.01). The relative risk for the occurrence of one or more technical events in MIS compared with CS was 1.7, and the risk for two or more technical events was 4.1. A time out according to protocol showed no relationship to the occurrence of the different types of patient safety-related events. The technological complexity inherent in MIS makes this type of surgery more prone to technology-related problems than CS, even in a specially designed minimally invasive surgical suite. A regular time-out procedure developed for CS lacks the attention necessary for the complex technology used in MIS and therefore is insufficient for MIS procedures briefing. Incorporating a specially designed technology checklist in a regular briefing protocol could be a solution to decrease the number of events in MIS.

Invasive surgery

10.1007/s00464-011-1874-z

Cite

Citations (21)

Analysis of Risk Factors for Intraoperative Conversion of Laparoscopic Myomectomy

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (2015)

Evelien M. Sandberg Sarah L. Cohen Frank Willem Jansen Jon I. Einarsson

10.1016/j.jmig.2015.10.017

Cite

Citations (22)