Gyusung I Lee1, Mija R Lee2. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street Blalock 1204, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. gyusunglee@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street Blalock 1204, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While it is often claimed that virtual reality (VR) training system can offer self-directed and mentor-free skill learning using the system's performance metrics (PM), no studies have yet provided evidence-based confirmation. This experimental study investigated what extent to which trainees achieved their self-learning with a current VR simulator and whether additional mentoring improved skill learning, skill transfer and cognitive workloads in robotic surgery simulation training. METHODS:Thirty-two surgical trainees were randomly assigned to either the Control-Group (CG) or Experiment-Group (EG). While the CG participants reviewed the PM at their discretion, the EG participants had explanations about PM and instructions on how to improve scores. Each subject completed a 5-week training using four simulation tasks. Pre- and post-training data were collected using both a simulator and robot. Peri-training data were collected after each session. Skill learning, time spent on PM (TPM), and cognitive workloads were compared between groups. RESULTS: After the simulation training, CG showed substantially lower simulation task scores (82.9 ± 6.0) compared with EG (93.2 ± 4.8). Both groups demonstrated improved physical model tasks performance with the actual robot, but the EG had a greater improvement in two tasks. The EG exhibited lower global mental workload/distress, higher engagement, and a better understanding regarding using PM to improve performance. The EG's TPM was initially long but substantially shortened as the group became familiar with PM. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the current VR simulator offered limited self-skill learning and additional mentoring still played an important role in improving the robotic surgery simulation training.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: While it is often claimed that virtual reality (VR) training system can offer self-directed and mentor-free skill learning using the system's performance metrics (PM), no studies have yet provided evidence-based confirmation. This experimental study investigated what extent to which trainees achieved their self-learning with a current VR simulator and whether additional mentoring improved skill learning, skill transfer and cognitive workloads in robotic surgery simulation training. METHODS: Thirty-two surgical trainees were randomly assigned to either the Control-Group (CG) or Experiment-Group (EG). While the CG participants reviewed the PM at their discretion, the EG participants had explanations about PM and instructions on how to improve scores. Each subject completed a 5-week training using four simulation tasks. Pre- and post-training data were collected using both a simulator and robot. Peri-training data were collected after each session. Skill learning, time spent on PM (TPM), and cognitive workloads were compared between groups. RESULTS: After the simulation training, CG showed substantially lower simulation task scores (82.9 ± 6.0) compared with EG (93.2 ± 4.8). Both groups demonstrated improved physical model tasks performance with the actual robot, but the EG had a greater improvement in two tasks. The EG exhibited lower global mental workload/distress, higher engagement, and a better understanding regarding using PM to improve performance. The EG's TPM was initially long but substantially shortened as the group became familiar with PM. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the current VR simulator offered limited self-skill learning and additional mentoring still played an important role in improving the robotic surgery simulation training.
Authors: Yatin R Patel; Harry W Donias; Douglas W Boyd; Ravi U Pande; Jeffery L Amodeo; Raffy L Karamanoukian; Giuseppe D'Ancona; Hratch L Karamanoukian Journal: Am Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 0.688
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: Kamran Ahmed; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Amit Vats; Kamal Nagpal; Oliver Priest; Vanash Patel; Joshua A Vecht; Hutan Ashrafian; Guang-Zhong Yang; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2009-09-06 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: Willem M Brinkman; Sonja N Buzink; Leonidas Alevizos; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Jack J Jakimowicz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Najma Ahmed; Katharine S Devitt; Itay Keshet; Jonathan Spicer; Kevin Imrie; Liane Feldman; Jonathan Cools-Lartigue; Ahmed Kayssi; Nir Lipsman; Maryam Elmi; Abhaya V Kulkarni; Chris Parshuram; Todd Mainprize; Richard J Warren; Paola Fata; M Sean Gorman; Stan Feinberg; James Rutka Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rossella Reddavid; William Allum; Karol Polom; Aridai Resendiz; Woo Jin Hyung; Paolo Kassab; Daniela Molena; Enrique Lanzarini; Masanori Terashima; Alberto Biondi; Richard Van Hilegersberg; Domenico D'Ugo; Uberto Fumagalli; Stefano Santi; Giovanni De Manzoni; Franco Roviello; Maurizio Degiuli Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2021-01-08
Authors: Marina Yiasemidou; Annabel Howitt; Judith Long; Peter Sedman; Damian Garcia-Olmo; Hector Guadalajara; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Dhananjaya Sharma; Shekhar Chandra Biyani; Bijendra Patel; Wayne Lam; Athur Harikrishnan; Juan Gómez Rivas; Jonathan Robinson; Tiago Manuel Ribeiro de Oliveira; Gabriel Escalona Vivas; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Rafael Tourinho-Barbosa; Ian Chetter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 3.752