Literature DB >> 24771197

Validation of the VBLaST peg transfer task: a first step toward an alternate training standard.

A Chellali1, L Zhang, G Sankaranarayanan, V S Arikatla, W Ahn, A Derevianko, S D Schwaitzberg, D B Jones, M DeMoya, C G L Cao.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The FLS trainer lacks objective and automated assessments of laparoscopic performance and requires a large supply of relatively expensive consumables. Virtual reality simulation has a great potential as a training and assessment tool of laparoscopic skills and can overcome some limitations of the FLS trainer. This study was carried out to assess the value of our Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Surgical Trainer (VBLaST(©)) in the peg transfer task compared to the FLS trainer and its ability to differentiate performance between novice, intermediate, and expert groups.
METHODS: Thirty subjects were divided into three groups: novices (PGY1-2, n = 10), intermediates (PGY3-4, n = 10), and experts (PGY5, surgical fellows and attendings, n = 10). All subjects performed ten trials of the peg transfer task on each simulator. Assessment of laparoscopic performance was based on FLS scoring while a questionnaire was used for subjective evaluation.
RESULTS: The performance scores in the two simulators were correlated, though subjects performed significantly better in the FLS trainer. Experts performed better than novices only on the FLS trainer while no significant differences were observed between the other groups. Moreover, a significant learning effect was found on both trainers, with a greater improvement of performance on the VBLaST(©). Finally, 82.6% of the subjects preferred the FLS over the VBLaST(©) for surgical training which could be attributed to the novelty of the VR technology and existing deficiencies of the user interface for the VBLaST(©).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the VBLaST(©) reproduced faithfully some aspects of the FLS peg transfer task (such as color, size, and shape of the peg board, etc.) while other aspects require additional development. Future improvement of the user interface and haptic feedback will enhance the value of the system as an alternative to the FLS as the standard training tool for laparoscopic surgery skills.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24771197      PMCID: PMC4189970          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3538-2

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


  22 in total

1.  Construct validity of the LapVR virtual-reality surgical simulator.

Authors:  Naoki Iwata; Michitaka Fujiwara; Yasuhiro Kodera; Chie Tanaka; Norifumi Ohashi; Goro Nakayama; Masahiko Koike; Akimasa Nakao
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents.

Authors:  P Ström; L Hedman; L Särnå; A Kjellin; T Wredmark; L Felländer-Tsai
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-03       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  High-level virtual reality simulator for endourologic procedures of lower urinary tract.

Authors:  Oliver Reich; Margarita Noll; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Bachmann; Raphaela Waidelich; Michael Seitz; Boris Schlenker; Reinhold Baumgartner; Alfons Hofstetter; Christian G Stief
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgery simulator (Lap Mentor): evaluation of surgical skill with a virtual laparoscopic training simulator.

Authors:  Aimin Zhang; Michael Hünerbein; Yiyang Dai; Peter M Schlag; Siegfried Beller
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-10-31       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks.

Authors:  Gerald M Fried
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Albert-Georg Lang; Axel Buchner
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2007-05

Review 7.  Surgical simulation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Leanne M Sutherland; Philippa F Middleton; Adrian Anthony; Jeffrey Hamdorf; Patrick Cregan; David Scott; Guy J Maddern
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training.

Authors:  Lucian Panait; Ehab Akkary; Robert L Bell; Kurt E Roberts; Stanley J Dudrick; Andrew J Duffy
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 2.192

9.  Preliminary face and construct validation study of a virtual basic laparoscopic skill trainer.

Authors:  Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Henry Lin; Venkata S Arikatla; Maureen Mulcare; Likun Zhang; Alexandre Derevianko; Robert Lim; David Fobert; Caroline Cao; Steven D Schwaitzberg; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.878

10.  Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator.

Authors:  Sanne M B I Botden; Sonja N Buzink; Marlies P Schijven; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  8 in total

1.  Achieving Interface and Environment Fidelity in the Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Surgical Trainer.

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

2.  Characterizing the learning curve of a virtual intracorporeal suturing simulator VBLaST-SS©.

Authors:  Yaoyu Fu; Lora Cavuoto; Di Qi; Karthikeyan Panneerselvam; Venkata Sreekanth Arikatla; Andinet Enquobahrie; Suvranu De; Steven D Schwaitzberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Face and construct validation of a next generation virtual reality (Gen2-VR) surgical simulator.

Authors:  Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Baichun Li; Kelly Manser; Stephanie B Jones; Daniel B Jones; Steven Schwaitzberg; Caroline G L Cao; Suvranu De
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Face, content, and construct validity of the EndoViS training system for objective assessment of psychomotor skills of laparoscopic surgeons.

Authors:  Fernando Pérez Escamirosa; Ricardo Manuel Ordorica Flores; Ignacio Oropesa García; Cristian Rubén Zalles Vidal; Arturo Minor Martínez
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Validation of the VBLaST: A Virtual Peg Transfer Task in Gynecologic Surgeons.

Authors:  Christopher Awtrey; Amine Chellali; Steven Schwaitzberg; Suvranu De; Daniel Jones; Caroline Cao
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 4.137

6.  Surgeons With Five or More Actual Cricothyrotomies Perform Significantly Better on a Virtual Reality Simulator.

Authors:  Di Qi; Emil Petrusa; Uwe Kruger; Nicholas Milef; Mohamad Rassoul Abu-Nuwar; Mohamad Haque; Robert Lim; Daniel B Jones; Melih Turkseven; Doga Demirel; Tansel Halic; Suvranu De; Noelle Saillant
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  Validation of the VBLaST pattern cutting task: a learning curve study.

Authors:  Ali M Linsk; Kimberley R Monden; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Woojin Ahn; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De; Steven D Schwaitzberg; Caroline G L Cao
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Validation of a virtual intracorporeal suturing simulator.

Authors:  Yaoyu Fu; Lora Cavuoto; Di Qi; Karthikeyan Panneerselvam; Gene Yang; Venkata Sreekanth Artikala; Andinet Enquobahrie; Suvranu De; Steven D Schwaitzberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.