BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the effect of a virtual reality simulator on the learning of basic robotic suturing skills. METHODS: Two randomized groups of students underwent a controlled training program. Both groups completed an identical test before and after training. The increase in the number of stitches placed during the pretest and posttest was used as an objective measure of the training effect. To evaluate the subjective feeling of understanding and mastering, the students indicated this on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant increase in the number of stitches placed during the posttest, and an increase in subjective feeling of understanding and mastering. The increase did not differ between the groups, indicating that the virtual reality simulator equaled the mechanical trainer in training of robotic suturing technique. CONCLUSIONS: Training in basic robot-assisted suturing skills using a virtual reality simulator without additional training equaled training using a mechanical simulator.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the effect of a virtual reality simulator on the learning of basic robotic suturing skills. METHODS: Two randomized groups of students underwent a controlled training program. Both groups completed an identical test before and after training. The increase in the number of stitches placed during the pretest and posttest was used as an objective measure of the training effect. To evaluate the subjective feeling of understanding and mastering, the students indicated this on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant increase in the number of stitches placed during the posttest, and an increase in subjective feeling of understanding and mastering. The increase did not differ between the groups, indicating that the virtual reality simulator equaled the mechanical trainer in training of robotic suturing technique. CONCLUSIONS: Training in basic robot-assisted suturing skills using a virtual reality simulator without additional training equaled training using a mechanical simulator.
Authors: G L Adrales; U B Chu; D B Witzke; M B Donnelly; D Hoskins; M J Mastrangelo; A Gandsas; A E Park Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2003-02-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: D H Boehm; H Reichenspurner; H Gulbins; C Detter; B Meiser; P Brenner; H Habazettl; B Reichart Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: David W Lin; John R Romanelli; Jay N Kuhn; Renee E Thompson; Ron W Bush; Neal E Seymour Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-02-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: S J Marecik; L M Prasad; J J Park; R K Pearl; R J Evenhouse; A Shah; K Khan; H Abcarian Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-12-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Andrea Gavazzi; Ali N Bahsoun; Wim Van Haute; Kamran Ahmed; Oussama Elhage; Peter Jaye; M Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Paula S Lee; Amy Bland; Fidel A Valea; Laura J Havrilesky; Andrew Berchuck; Angeles Alvarez Secord Journal: JSLS Date: 2009 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Anil A Thomas; Brian Kim; Armen Derboghossians; Allen Chang; David S Finley; Gary W Chien; Jeffrey Slezak; Steven J Jacobsen Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2014-04