Alyssa Tanaka1, Courtney Graddy2, Khara Simpson3, Manuela Perez4, Mireille Truong3, Roger Smith5. 1. Florida Hospital Nicholson Center, 404 Celebration Place, Celebration, FL, 34747, USA. Alyssa.tanaka@flhosp.org. 2. Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA. 3. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. University of Lorraine-Nancy, Nancy, FR, USA. 5. Florida Hospital Nicholson Center, 404 Celebration Place, Celebration, FL, 34747, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of simulation into minimally invasive robotic surgery is relatively recent and has seen rapid advancement; therefore, a need exists to develop training curriculums and identify systems that will be most effective at training surgical skills. Several simulators have been introduced to support these aims-the daVinci skills simulator, Mimic dV-Trainer, Surgical Simulated Systems' RoSS, and Simbionix Robotix Mentor. While multiple studies have been conducted to demonstrate the validity of these systems, studies comparing the perceived value of these devices as tools for education and skills are lacking. METHODS: Subjects who qualified as medical students or physicians (n = 105) were assigned a specific order to use each of the three simulators. After completing a demographic questionnaire, participants performed one exercise on the three simulators and completed a second questionnaire regarding their experience with the device. After using all systems, they completed a final questionnaire, which detailed their comparative preferences. The subject's performance metrics were also collected from each simulator. RESULTS: The data confirmed the face, content, and construct validity for the dV-trainer and skills simulator. Similar validities could not be confirmed for the RoSS. >80 % of the time, participants chose the skills simulator in terms of physical comfort, ergonomics, and overall choice. However, only 55 % thought the skills simulator was worth the cost of the equipment. The dV-Trainer had the highest cost preference scores with 71 % of respondents feeling it was worth the investment. CONCLUSIONS: Usability can affect the consistency and commitment of users of robotic surgical simulators. In a previous study, these simulators were objectively reviewed and compared in terms of their system capabilities. Collectively, this work will offer end-users and potential buyers a comparison of the perceived value and preferences of robotic simulators.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of simulation into minimally invasive robotic surgery is relatively recent and has seen rapid advancement; therefore, a need exists to develop training curriculums and identify systems that will be most effective at training surgical skills. Several simulators have been introduced to support these aims-the daVinci skills simulator, Mimic dV-Trainer, Surgical Simulated Systems' RoSS, and Simbionix Robotix Mentor. While multiple studies have been conducted to demonstrate the validity of these systems, studies comparing the perceived value of these devices as tools for education and skills are lacking. METHODS: Subjects who qualified as medical students or physicians (n = 105) were assigned a specific order to use each of the three simulators. After completing a demographic questionnaire, participants performed one exercise on the three simulators and completed a second questionnaire regarding their experience with the device. After using all systems, they completed a final questionnaire, which detailed their comparative preferences. The subject's performance metrics were also collected from each simulator. RESULTS: The data confirmed the face, content, and construct validity for the dV-trainer and skills simulator. Similar validities could not be confirmed for the RoSS. >80 % of the time, participants chose the skills simulator in terms of physical comfort, ergonomics, and overall choice. However, only 55 % thought the skills simulator was worth the cost of the equipment. The dV-Trainer had the highest cost preference scores with 71 % of respondents feeling it was worth the investment. CONCLUSIONS: Usability can affect the consistency and commitment of users of robotic surgical simulators. In a previous study, these simulators were objectively reviewed and compared in terms of their system capabilities. Collectively, this work will offer end-users and potential buyers a comparison of the perceived value and preferences of robotic simulators.
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: Sara S Van Nortwick; Thomas S Lendvay; Aaron R Jensen; Andrew S Wright; Karen D Horvath; Sara Kim Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.982
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: 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: Gianluca Cassese; Antonio Castaldi; Bader Al Taweel; Moglie Le Quintrec; Rodolphe Thuret; Francis Navarro; Fabrizio Panaro Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Philip Zeuschner; Philippe Becker; Julia Heinzelbecker; Johannes Linxweiler; Stefan Siemer; Michael Stöckle; Matthias Saar Journal: Urologe A Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 0.639