Cecilie Våpenstad1, Sonja N Buzink. 1. Department of Medical Technology, SINTEF Technology and Society, PB 4760 Sluppen, 7465 Trondheim, Norway. cecilie.vapenstad@sintef.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simulation of procedural tasks has the potential to bridge the gap between basic skills training outside the operating room (OR) and performance of complex surgical tasks in the OR. This paper provides an overview of procedural virtual reality (VR) simulation currently available on the market and presented in scientific literature for laparoscopy (LS), flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy (FGE), and endovascular surgery (EVS). METHODS: An online survey was sent to companies and research groups selling or developing procedural VR simulators, and a systematic search was done for scientific publications presenting or applying VR simulators to train or assess procedural skills in the PUBMED and SCOPUS databases. RESULTS: The results of five simulator companies were included in the survey. In the literature review, 116 articles were analyzed (45 on LS, 43 on FGE, 28 on EVS), presenting a total of 23 simulator systems. The companies stated to altogether offer 78 procedural tasks (33 for LS, 12 for FGE, 33 for EVS), of which 17 also were found in the literature review. Although study type and used outcomes vary between the three different fields, approximately 90 % of the studies presented in the retrieved publications for LS found convincing evidence to confirm the validity or added value of procedural VR simulation. This was the case in approximately 75 % for FGE and EVS. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural training using VR simulators has been found to improve clinical performance. There is nevertheless a large amount of simulated procedural tasks that have not been validated. Future research should focus on the optimal use of procedural simulators in the most effective training setups and further investigate the benefits of procedural VR simulation to improve clinical outcome.
BACKGROUND: Simulation of procedural tasks has the potential to bridge the gap between basic skills training outside the operating room (OR) and performance of complex surgical tasks in the OR. This paper provides an overview of procedural virtual reality (VR) simulation currently available on the market and presented in scientific literature for laparoscopy (LS), flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy (FGE), and endovascular surgery (EVS). METHODS: An online survey was sent to companies and research groups selling or developing procedural VR simulators, and a systematic search was done for scientific publications presenting or applying VR simulators to train or assess procedural skills in the PUBMED and SCOPUS databases. RESULTS: The results of five simulator companies were included in the survey. In the literature review, 116 articles were analyzed (45 on LS, 43 on FGE, 28 on EVS), presenting a total of 23 simulator systems. The companies stated to altogether offer 78 procedural tasks (33 for LS, 12 for FGE, 33 for EVS), of which 17 also were found in the literature review. Although study type and used outcomes vary between the three different fields, approximately 90 % of the studies presented in the retrieved publications for LS found convincing evidence to confirm the validity or added value of procedural VR simulation. This was the case in approximately 75 % for FGE and EVS. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural training using VR simulators has been found to improve clinical performance. There is nevertheless a large amount of simulated procedural tasks that have not been validated. Future research should focus on the optimal use of procedural simulators in the most effective training setups and further investigate the benefits of procedural VR simulation to improve clinical outcome.
Authors: Rajesh Aggarwal; Teodor P Grantcharov; Jens R Eriksen; Dorthe Blirup; Viggo B Kristiansen; Peter Funch-Jensen; Ara Darzi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Tamara N Fitzgerald; Andrew J Duffy; Robert L Bell; Loren Berman; Walter E Longo; Kurt E Roberts Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Liv Ahlborg; Leif Hedman; Daniel Murkes; Bo Westman; Ann Kjellin; Li Felländer-Tsai; Lars Enochsson Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Jason Park; Helen MacRae; Laura J Musselman; Peter Rossos; Stanley J Hamstra; Stephen Wolman; Richard K Reznick Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Amine Chellali; Helena Mentis; Amie Miller; Woojin Ahn; Venkata S Arikatla; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Suvranu De; Steven D Schwaitzberg; Caroline G L Cao Journal: Int J Hum Comput Stud Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 3.632
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Jonathan D Hendrie; Mona W Schmidt; Tanja Proctor; Sai Paul; Carly R Garrow; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.584