Literature DB >> 27001876

Multidisciplinary validation study of the da Vinci Skills Simulator: educational tool and assessment device.

Kirsten Foell1, Alexander Furse2, R John D'A Honey1, Kenneth T Pace1, Jason Y Lee3.   

Abstract

Despite the increased dexterity and precision of robotic surgery, like any new surgical technology it is still associated with a learning curve that can impact patient outcomes. The use of surgical simulators outside of the operating room, in a low-stakes environment, has been shown to shorten such learning curves. We present a multidisciplinary validation study of a robotic surgery simulator, the da Vinci(®) Skills Simulator (dVSS). Trainees and attending faculty from the University of Toronto, Departments of Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology (ObGyn), were recruited to participate in this validation study. All participants completed seven different exercises on the dVSS (Camera Targeting 1, Peg Board 1, Peg Board 2, Ring Walk 2, Match Board 1, Thread the Rings, Suture Sponge 1) and, using the da Vinci S Robot (dVR), completed two standardized skill tasks (Ring Transfer, Needle Passing). Participants were categorized as novice robotic surgeon (NRS) and experienced robotic surgeon (ERS) based on the number of robotic cases performed. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent T test and non-parametric Spearman's correlation. A total of 53 participants were included in the study: 27 urology, 13 ObGyn, and 13 thoracic surgery (Table 1). Most participants (89 %) either had no prior console experience or had performed <10 robotic cases, while one (2 %) had performed 10-20 cases and five (9 %) had performed ≥20 robotic surgeries. The dVSS demonstrated excellent face and content validity and 97 and 86 % of participants agreed that it was useful for residency training and post-graduate training, respectively. The dVSS also demonstrated construct validity, with NRS performing significantly worse than ERS on most exercises with respect to overall score, time to completion, economy of motion, and errors (Table 2). Excellent concurrent validity was also demonstrated as dVSS scores for most exercises correlated with performance of the two standardized skill tasks using the dVR (Table 3). This multidisciplinary validation study of the dVSS provides excellent face, content, construct, and concurrent validity evidence, which supports its integrated use in a comprehensive robotic surgery training program, both as an educational tool and potentially as an assessment device. Table 1 dVSS validation study participant demographic information Survey question Response Number (%) Gender Male 36 (67.9) Female 17 (32.1) Handedness Right-hand dominant 45 (84.9) Left-hand dominant 4 (7.5) Ambidextrous 3 (5.7) Level of training Junior Resident (R1-R3) 17 (32.1) Senior Resident (R4-R5) 12 (22.6) Fellow 16 (30.2) Staff Surgeon 8 (15.1) Specialty Urology 27 (50.9) ObGyn 13 (24.5) Thoracics 13 (24.5) Previous MIS experience (laparoscopic or thoracoscopic) None/minimal 17 (32.1) Moderate 11 (20.8) Significant 18 (34.0) Fellowship-trained in MIS 4 (7.5) Previous robotic surgery experience None 32 (60.4) Yes 21 (39.6) If yes, number of operative cases as surgical assistant 0 cases 33 (62.3) <10 cases 9 (17.0) 10-20 cases 3 (5.7) >20 cases 8 (9.4) If yes, number of operative cases at robotic console for at least 30 min 0 cases 41 (77.4) <10 cases 6 (11.3) 10-20 cases 1 (1.9) >20 cases 5 (9.4) MIS minimally invasive surgery Table 2 dVSS construct validity evidence dVSS exercise All subjects' overall score (%, mean ± SD) Novice robotic surgeon overall score (%, mean ± SD) Expert robotic surgeon overall score (%, mean ± SD) p value Camera Targeting 1 69.943 ± 21.7489 67.170 ± 21.5258 91.667 ± 4.2269 0.008 Peg Board 1 78.596 ± 11.9824 76.913 ± 11.6616 91.500 ± 3.8341 0.004 Match Board 1 69.880 ± 17.7691 67.864 ± 17.9075 84.667 ± 6.1860 0.028 Thread the Rings 74.152 ± 16.4289 71.825 ± 16.2605 89.667 ± 5.8878 0.011 Suture Sponge 1 74.787 ± 14.3086 73.171 ± 14.5067 85.833 ± 5.6716 0.042 Ring Walk 2 75.098 ± 20.0861 73.333 ± 20.1099 88.333 ± 15.4100 0.086 Peg Board 2 84.308 ± 11.7633 83.283 ± 12.0861 92.167 ± 3.6009 0.082 Table 3 dVSS concurrent validity evidence NP time NP errors RT time RT errors Camera Targeting 1 overall score 0.471 (0.001) 0.083 (0.575) 0.291 (0.045) 0.061 (0.685) Peg Board 1 overall score 0.486 (0.001) 0.141 (0.344) 0.325 (0.026) 0.088 (0.555) Match Board 1 overall score 0.543 (<0.001) 0.096 (0.530) 0.295 (0.050) 0.215 (0.162) Thread the Rings overall score 0.432 (0.005) 0.231 (0.147) 0.533 (<0.001) 0.163 (0.310) Suture Sponge 1 overall score 0.592 (<0.001) 0.105 (0.509) 0.437 (0.004) 0.015 (0.925) Ring Walk 2 overall score 0.454 (0.002) 0.179 (0.234) 0.399 (0.006) 0.022 (0.884) Peg Board 2 overall score 0.675 (<0.001) 0.058 (0.696) 0.073 (0.626) 0.045 (0.762) Subjects' overall score for each dVSS exercise is correlated with the time to complete (time) and number of errors (errors) for the Needle Passing (NP) and Ring Transfer (RT) tasks performed using the dVR. Data is expressed as Pearson correlation coefficient (p value).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment; Robotic surgery; Surgical simulator; Training

Year:  2013        PMID: 27001876     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-013-0403-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  20 in total

1.  Designing a proficiency-based, content validated virtual reality curriculum for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a Delphi approach.

Authors:  Vanessa N Palter; Maurits Graafland; Marlies P Schijven; Teodor P Grantcharov
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2011-10-22       Impact factor: 3.982

2.  Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator--role as an assessment tool?

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

3.  Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents.

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

Review 4.  VR to OR: a review of the evidence that virtual reality simulation improves operating room performance.

Authors:  Neal E Seymour
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Differences in grip forces among various robotic instruments and da Vinci surgical platforms.

Authors:  Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Donald L Pick; Jason Y Lee; Elspeth M McDougall; Michael K Louie
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci trainer(™) and the daVinci surgical skills simulator(™) using the Mimic(™) software for urologic robotic surgical education.

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

7.  da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance.

Authors:  Kyle T Finnegan; Anoop M Meraney; Ilene Staff; Steven J Shichman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Continence, potency and oncological outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high-volume surgeon.

Authors:  Vipul R Patel; Rafael F Coelho; Sanket Chauhan; Marcelo A Orvieto; Kenneth J Palmer; Bernardo Rocco; Ananthakrishnan Sivaraman; Geoff Coughlin
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 9.  Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing.

Authors:  Jason Y Lee; Phillip Mucksavage; Chandru P Sundaram; Elspeth M McDougall
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney: a single institution comparative analysis.

Authors:  Kamol Panumatrassamee; Riccardo Autorino; Humberto Laydner; Shahab Hillyer; Ali Khalifeh; Ahmad Kassab; Robert J Stein; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.369

View more
  3 in total

1.  Low confidence levels with the robotic platform among senior surgical residents: simulation training is needed.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Jason M Long; Sean Brown; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-08-11

2.  "Alarm-corrected" ergonomic armrest use could improve learning curves of novices on robotic simulator.

Authors:  Kun Yang; Manuela Perez; Gabriela Hossu; Nicolas Hubert; Cyril Perrenot; Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Novel simulator for robotic surgery.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-08-31
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.