Roger Smith1, Mireille Truong, Manuela Perez. 1. Florida Hospital Nicholson Center, 404 Celebration Place, Celebration, FL, 34747, USA, roger.smith@flhosp.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of robotic technology in minimally invasive surgery has led to the need to develop more efficient and effective training methods, as well as assessment and skill maintenance tools for surgical education. Multiple simulators and procedures are available for educational and training purposes. A need for comparative evaluations of these simulators exists to aid users in selecting an appropriate device for their purposes. METHODS: We conducted an objective review and comparison of the design and capabilities of all dedicated simulators of the da Vinci robot, the da Vinci Skill Simulator (DVSS) (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), dV-Trainer (dVT) (Mimic Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), and Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) (Simulated Surgical Skills, LLC, Williamsville, NY, USA). This provides base specifications of the hardware and software, with an emphasis on the training capabilities of each system. RESULTS: Each simulator contains a large number of training exercises, DVSS = 40, dVT = 65, and RoSS = 52 for skills development. All three offer 3D visual images but use different display technologies. The DVSS leverages the real robotic surgeon's console to provide visualization, hand controls, and foot pedals. The dVT and RoSS created simulated versions of all of these control systems. They include systems management services which allow instructors to collect, export, and analyze the scores of students using the simulators. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to provide comparative information of the three simulators functional capabilities with an emphasis on their educational skills. They offer unique advantages and capabilities in training robotic surgeons. Each device has been the subject of multiple validation experiments which have been published in the literature. But those do not provide specific details on the capabilities of the simulators which are necessary for an understanding sufficient to select the one best suited for an organization's needs.
BACKGROUND: The implementation of robotic technology in minimally invasive surgery has led to the need to develop more efficient and effective training methods, as well as assessment and skill maintenance tools for surgical education. Multiple simulators and procedures are available for educational and training purposes. A need for comparative evaluations of these simulators exists to aid users in selecting an appropriate device for their purposes. METHODS: We conducted an objective review and comparison of the design and capabilities of all dedicated simulators of the da Vinci robot, the da Vinci Skill Simulator (DVSS) (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), dV-Trainer (dVT) (Mimic Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), and Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) (Simulated Surgical Skills, LLC, Williamsville, NY, USA). This provides base specifications of the hardware and software, with an emphasis on the training capabilities of each system. RESULTS: Each simulator contains a large number of training exercises, DVSS = 40, dVT = 65, and RoSS = 52 for skills development. All three offer 3D visual images but use different display technologies. The DVSS leverages the real robotic surgeon's console to provide visualization, hand controls, and foot pedals. The dVT and RoSS created simulated versions of all of these control systems. They include systems management services which allow instructors to collect, export, and analyze the scores of students using the simulators. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to provide comparative information of the three simulators functional capabilities with an emphasis on their educational skills. They offer unique advantages and capabilities in training robotic surgeons. Each device has been the subject of multiple validation experiments which have been published in the literature. But those do not provide specific details on the capabilities of the simulators which are necessary for an understanding sufficient to select the one best suited for an organization's needs.
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Victor B Huynh; Mohamed Etafy; Elspeth M McDougall Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ruslan Korets; Adam C Mues; Joseph A Graversen; Mantu Gupta; Mitchell C Benson; Kimberly L Cooper; Jaime Landman; Ketan K Badani Journal: Urology Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Patrick A Kenney; Matthew F Wszolek; Justin J Gould; John A Libertino; Alireza Moinzadeh Journal: Urology Date: 2009-04-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Michael A Liss; Corollos Abdelshehid; Stephen Quach; Achim Lusch; Joseph Graversen; Jaime Landman; Elspeth M McDougall Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Andrew P Stegemann; Kamran Ahmed; Johar R Syed; Shabnam Rehman; Khurshid Ghani; Ricardo Autorino; Mohamed Sharif; Amrith Rao; Yi Shi; Gregory E Wilding; James M Hassett; Ashirwad Chowriappa; Thenkurussi Kesavadas; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Jihad Kaouk; Khurshid Ahad Guru Journal: Urology Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Henk W R Schreuder; Jan E U Persson; Richard G H Wolswijk; Ingmar Ihse; Marlies P Schijven; René H M Verheijen Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2014-01-30
Authors: Ana I Tergas; Sangini B Sheth; Isabel C Green; Robert L Giuntoli; Abigail D Winder; Amanda N Fader Journal: JSLS Date: 2013 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Anna Skinner; David Diller; Rohit Kumar; Jan Cannon-Bowers; Roger Smith; Alyssa Tanaka; Danielle Julian; Ray Perez Journal: Int J STEM Educ Date: 2018-04-15