Abdulgadir Bugdadi1, Robin Sawaya2, Khalid Bajunaid3, Duaa Olwi4, Alexander Winkler-Schwartz2, Nicole Ledwos2, Ibrahim Marwa2, Ghusn Alsideiri5, Abdulrahman Jafar Sabbagh6, Fahad E Alotaibi7, Gmaan Al-Zhrani7, Rolando Del Maestro2. 1. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah Almukarramah, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: Abdulgadir.Bugdadi@mail.mcgill.ca. 2. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 4. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 5. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. 6. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Clinical Skill and Simulation Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 7. Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; National Neuroscience Institute, Department of Neurosurgery, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to assess if surgical performance and subjective assessment of a virtual reality simulator platform was influenced by changing force feedback devices. DESIGN: Participants used the NeuroVR (formerly NeuroTouch) simulator to perform 5 practice scenarios and a realistic scenario involving subpial resection of a virtual reality brain tumor with simulated bleeding. The influence of force feedback was assessed by utilizing the Omni and Entact haptic systems. Tier 1, tier 2, and tier 2 advanced metrics were used to compare results. Operator subjective assessment of the haptic systems tested utilized seven Likert criteria (score 1 to 5). SETTING: The study is carried out at the McGill Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Six expert operators in the utilization of the NeuroVR simulator platform. RESULTS: No significant differences in surgical performance were found between the two haptic devices. Participants significantly preferred the Entact system on all 7 Likert criteria of subjective assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show no statistical differences in virtual reality surgical performance utilizing the two bimanual haptic devices tested. Subjective assessments demonstrated that participants preferred the Entact system. Our results suggest that to maximize realism of the training experience educators employing virtual reality simulators may find it useful to assess expert opinion before choosing a force feedback device.
OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to assess if surgical performance and subjective assessment of a virtual reality simulator platform was influenced by changing force feedback devices. DESIGN:Participants used the NeuroVR (formerly NeuroTouch) simulator to perform 5 practice scenarios and a realistic scenario involving subpial resection of a virtual reality brain tumor with simulated bleeding. The influence of force feedback was assessed by utilizing the Omni and Entact haptic systems. Tier 1, tier 2, and tier 2 advanced metrics were used to compare results. Operator subjective assessment of the haptic systems tested utilized seven Likert criteria (score 1 to 5). SETTING: The study is carried out at the McGill Neurosurgical Simulation Research and Training Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Six expert operators in the utilization of the NeuroVR simulator platform. RESULTS: No significant differences in surgical performance were found between the two haptic devices. Participants significantly preferred the Entact system on all 7 Likert criteria of subjective assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show no statistical differences in virtual reality surgical performance utilizing the two bimanual haptic devices tested. Subjective assessments demonstrated that participants preferred the Entact system. Our results suggest that to maximize realism of the training experience educators employing virtual reality simulators may find it useful to assess expert opinion before choosing a force feedback device.
Keywords:
Haptic and force feedback; Medical Knowledge; Neurosurgery; Neurosurgical virtual reality and simulation; Patient Care; Surgical simulation; Surgical training; System-Based Practice
Authors: Ali M Fazlollahi; Mohamad Bakhaidar; Ahmad Alsayegh; Recai Yilmaz; Alexander Winkler-Schwartz; Nykan Mirchi; Ian Langleben; Nicole Ledwos; Abdulrahman J Sabbagh; Khalid Bajunaid; Jason M Harley; Rolando F Del Maestro Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Alessandro Iop; Victor Gabriel El-Hajj; Maria Gharios; Andrea de Giorgio; Fabio Marco Monetti; Erik Edström; Adrian Elmi-Terander; Mario Romero Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-08-14 Impact factor: 3.847