Kalpesh R Vaghela1, Amaury Trockels2, Marco Carobene3. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, The Royal London Hospital, Percivall Pott Rotation, London, UK. 2. Department of Elderly Medicine, Southend University Hospital, Southend-On-Sea, UK. 3. Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual Reality (VR) simulators are playing an increasingly prominent role in orthopaedic training and education. Face-validity - the degree to which reality is accurately represented - underpins the value of a VR simulator as a learning tool for trainees. Despite the importance of tactile feedback in arthroscopy, there is a paucity for evidence regarding the role of haptics in VR arthroscopy simulator realism. PURPOSE: To assess the difference in face validity between two high fidelity VR simulators employing passive and active haptic feedback technology respectively. METHOD: 38 participants were recruited and divided into intermediate and expert groups based on orthopaedic training grade. Each participant completed a 12-point diagnostic knee arthroscopy VR module using the active haptic Simbionix ARTHRO Mentor and passive haptic VirtaMed ArthroS simulators. Subsequently, each participant completed a validated simulator face validity questionnaire. RESULTS: The ARTHRO Mentor active haptic system failed to achieve face validity with mean scores for external appearance (6.61), intra-articular appearance (4.78) and instrumentation (4.36) falling below the acceptable threshold (≥7.0). The ArthroS passive haptic simulator demonstrated satisfactory scores in all domains: external appearance (8.42), intra-articular appearance (7.65), instrumentation (7.21) and was significantly (p < 0.001) more realistic than ARTHRO Mentor for all metrics. 61% of participants gave scores ≥7.0 for questions pertaining to haptic feedback realism from intra-articular structures such as menisci and ACL/PCL for the ArthroS vs. 12% for ARTHRO Mentor. There was no difference in face-validity perception between intermediate and expert groups for either simulator (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current active haptic technology which employs motors to simulate tactile feedback fails to demonstrate sufficient face-validity or match the sophistication of passive haptic systems in high fidelity arthroscopy simulators. Textured rubber phantoms that mirror the anatomy and haptic properties of the knee joint provide a significantly more realistic training experience for both intermediate and expert arthroscopists.
BACKGROUND: Virtual Reality (VR) simulators are playing an increasingly prominent role in orthopaedic training and education. Face-validity - the degree to which reality is accurately represented - underpins the value of a VR simulator as a learning tool for trainees. Despite the importance of tactile feedback in arthroscopy, there is a paucity for evidence regarding the role of haptics in VR arthroscopy simulator realism. PURPOSE: To assess the difference in face validity between two high fidelity VR simulators employing passive and active haptic feedback technology respectively. METHOD: 38 participants were recruited and divided into intermediate and expert groups based on orthopaedic training grade. Each participant completed a 12-point diagnostic knee arthroscopy VR module using the active haptic Simbionix ARTHRO Mentor and passive haptic VirtaMed ArthroS simulators. Subsequently, each participant completed a validated simulator face validity questionnaire. RESULTS: The ARTHRO Mentor active haptic system failed to achieve face validity with mean scores for external appearance (6.61), intra-articular appearance (4.78) and instrumentation (4.36) falling below the acceptable threshold (≥7.0). The ArthroS passive haptic simulator demonstrated satisfactory scores in all domains: external appearance (8.42), intra-articular appearance (7.65), instrumentation (7.21) and was significantly (p < 0.001) more realistic than ARTHRO Mentor for all metrics. 61% of participants gave scores ≥7.0 for questions pertaining to haptic feedback realism from intra-articular structures such as menisci and ACL/PCL for the ArthroS vs. 12% for ARTHRO Mentor. There was no difference in face-validity perception between intermediate and expert groups for either simulator (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Current active haptic technology which employs motors to simulate tactile feedback fails to demonstrate sufficient face-validity or match the sophistication of passive haptic systems in high fidelity arthroscopy simulators. Textured rubber phantoms that mirror the anatomy and haptic properties of the knee joint provide a significantly more realistic training experience for both intermediate and expert arthroscopists.
Authors: Jennifer L Irani; Michelle M Mello; Stanley W Ashley; Edward E Whang; Michael J Zinner; Elizabeth Breen Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: W Dilworth Cannon; Gregg T Nicandri; Karl Reinig; Howard Mevis; Jocelyn Wittstein Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Lucian Panait; Ehab Akkary; Robert L Bell; Kurt E Roberts; Stanley J Dudrick; Andrew J Duffy Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Sandro F Fucentese; Stefan Rahm; Karl Wieser; Jonas Spillmann; Matthias Harders; Peter P Koch Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof; P Visser; Inger N Sierevelt; C Niek Van Dijk; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 4.176