Literature DB >> 22672340

Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators - a systematic review.

Hamid Abboudi1, Mohammed S Khan, Omar Aboumarzouk, Khurshid A Guru, Ben Challacombe, Prokar Dasgupta, Kamran Ahmed.   

Abstract

To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®) and PsycINFO(®) databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; 'expert' and 'novice'. Experts ranged in experience from 21-2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV-Trainer(®), ProMIS(®), SimSurgery Educational Platform(®) (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery.
© 2012 BJU International.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22672340     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  42 in total

Review 1.  Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review.

Authors:  Justin D Bric; Derek C Lumbard; Matthew J Frelich; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Education and training in pediatric robotic surgery: lessons learned from an inaugural multinational workshop.

Authors:  Thomas P Cundy; Erik K Mayer; Juan I Camps; Lars H Olsen; Gloria Pelizzo; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi; Azad S Najmaldin
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-10-17

3.  Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel J Kiely; Walter H Gotlieb; Susie Lau; Xing Zeng; Vanessa Samouelian; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Helena Zakrzewski; Sonya Brin; Shannon A Fraser; Pira Korsieporn; Laura Drudi; Joshua Z Press
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-05-16

4.  Factors predicting prolonged operative time for individual surgical steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): A single surgeon's experience.

Authors:  Abdullah M Alenizi; Roger Valdivieso; Emad Rajih; Malek Meskawi; Cristian Toarta; Marc Bienz; Mounsif Azizi; Pierre Alain Hueber; Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin; Vincent Trudeau; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of a novel robotic surgery patient-side simulator: the Xperience™ Team Trainer.

Authors:  Song Xu; Manuela Perez; Cyril Perrenot; Nicolas Hubert; Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Simulation-based training in robot-assisted surgery: current evidence of value and potential trends for the future.

Authors:  Michael I Hanzly; Tareq Al-Tartir; Syed Johar Raza; Atif Khan; Mohammad Manan Durrani; Thomas Fiorica; Phillip Ginsberg; James L Mohler; Boris Kuvshinoff; Khurshid A Guru
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Comparison of Training Efficacy Between Custom-Made Skills Simulator (CMSS) and da Vinci Skills Simulators: A Randomized Control Study.

Authors:  Cho Rok Lee; Seoung Yoon Rho; Sang Hyup Han; Young Moon; Sun Young Hwang; Young Joo Kim; Chang Moo Kang
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  Standardizing hysteroscopy teaching: development of a curriculum using the Delphi method.

Authors:  Marie-Emmanuelle Neveu; Elodie Debras; Julien Niro; Hervé Fernandez; Pierre Panel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Innovations in surgery simulation: a review of past, current and future techniques.

Authors:  Ido Badash; Karen Burtt; Carlos A Solorzano; Joseph N Carey
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-12

10.  Evaluation of different time schedules in training with the Da Vinci simulator.

Authors:  C Güldner; A Orth; P Dworschak; I Diogo; M Mandapathil; A Teymoortash; U Walliczek-Dworschak
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.