Literature DB >> 18297349

Computer-based laparoscopic and robotic surgical simulators: performance characteristics and perceptions of new users.

David W Lin1, John R Romanelli, Jay N Kuhn, Renee E Thompson, Ron W Bush, Neal E Seymour.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to define perceptions of the need and the value of new simulation devices for laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. The initial experience of surgeons using both robotic and nonrobotic laparoscopic simulators to perform an advanced laparoscopic skill was evaluated.
METHODS: At the 2006 Society of American Gastroesophageal Surgeons (SAGES) meeting, 63 Learning Center attendees used a new virtual reality robotic surgery simulator (SEP Robot) and either a computer-enhanced laparoscopic simulator (ProMIS) or a virtual reality simulator (SurgicalSIM). Demographic and training data were collected by an intake survey. Subjects then were assessed during one iteration of laparoscopic suturing and knot-tying on the SEP Robot and either the ProMIS or the SurgicalSIM. A posttask survey determined users' impressions of task realism, interface quality, and educational value. Performance data were collected and comparisons made between user-defined groups, different simulation platforms, and posttask survey responses.
RESULTS: The task completion rate was significantly greater for experts than for nonexperts on the virtual reality platforms (SurgicalSIM: 100% vs 36%; SEP Robot: 93% vs 63%; p < 0.05). Prior robot use was predictive of task completion on the SEP Robot, and nonexperts were more likely to complete the virtual reality task on the SEP Robot than on the SurgicalSIM. Experts performed better than nonexperts for all performance measures on the ProMIS. All the survey scores pertaining to realism except image quality were higher for the ProMIS than for either virtual reality trainer.
CONCLUSION: The task completion rate was the best discriminant of expert performance on both virtual reality platforms, whereas simulator metrics best discriminated expertise for the videoscopic platform. Similar comparisons for the virtual reality platforms were not feasible because of the low task completion rate for nonexperts. The added degrees of freedom associated with the robotic surgical simulator instruments facilitated completion of the task by nonexperts. All platforms were perceived as effective training tools.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18297349     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-9805-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  7 in total

1.  The transfer of basic skills learned in a laparoscopic simulator to the operating room.

Authors:  A Hyltander; E Liljegren; P H Rhodin; H Lönroth
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-05-07       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study.

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

3.  Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery.

Authors:  K Moorthy; Y Munz; A Dosis; J Hernandez; S Martin; F Bello; T Rockall; A Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Virtual reality simulator training equals mechanical robotic training in improving robot-assisted basic suturing skills.

Authors:  F H Halvorsen; O J Elle; V V Dalinin; B E Mørk; V Sørhus; J S Røtnes; E Fosse
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Construct validation of a novel hybrid surgical simulator.

Authors:  D Broe; P F Ridgway; S Johnson; S Tierney; K C Conlon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems.

Authors:  E C Lee; A Rafiq; R Merrell; R Ackerman; J T Dennerlein
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-05-26       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  T P Grantcharov; V B Kristiansen; J Bendix; L Bardram; J Rosenberg; P Funch-Jensen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.939

  7 in total
  5 in total

1.  The effects of viewing axis on laparoscopic performance: a comparison of non-expert and expert laparoscopic surgeons.

Authors:  Rebecca Rhee; Gladys Fernandez; Ron Bush; Neal E Seymour
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-05-23       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Simulation platforms to assess laparoscopic suturing skills: a scoping review.

Authors:  Elif Bilgic; Motaz Alyafi; Tomonori Hada; Tara Landry; Gerald M Fried; Melina C Vassiliou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Learning tools and simulation in robotic surgery: state of the art.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Philippe Morel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator.

Authors:  Thomas S Lendvay; Pasquale Casale; Robert Sweet; Craig Peters
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2008-07-25

Review 5.  They see a rat, we seek a cure for diseases: the current status of animal experimentation in medical practice.

Authors:  Elijah O Kehinde
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 1.927

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.