Mia S Turbati1, Matthew I Goldblatt1, Jon C Gould1, Rana M Higgins2. 1. Division of Minimally Invasive and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. 2. Division of Minimally Invasive and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. rhiggins@mcw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The da Vinci skills simulation curriculum has been validated in the literature. The updated simulator, SimNow, features restructured exercises that have not been formally validated. The purpose of this study is to validate the SimNow resident robotic basic simulation curriculum. This study also consists of a qualitative assessment that gives greater insight into the learner's experience completing the robotic curriculum. METHODS: There were 18 participants in this study: 6 novices, 6 competent surgeons, and 6 expert surgeons. The curriculum comprised 5 exercises; participants completed three consecutive scored trials. Computer-derived performance metrics were recorded. The NASA Task Load Index survey was used to assess subjective mental workload. Subjects were asked a series of open-ended questions regarding their experience that were recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified using an inductive method, and themes were generated. RESULTS: Performance metrics were significantly different between novice versus competent and expert surgeons. There was no significant difference in any score metric between competent and expert surgeons. On average, overall score percentages for competent and expert surgeons were between 90.4 and 92.8% versus 70.5% for novices (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01). Expert surgeons perceived a higher level of performance completing the exercises than novice surgeons (15.8 vs. 45.8, p = 0.02). Participants noted a similar robotic experience, utilizing efficiency of motion and visual field skills. Participants agreed on exercise strengths, exercise weaknesses, and software limitations. Competent and expert surgeons were better able to assess the exercises' clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: The SimNow curriculum is a valid simulation training as part of a general surgery resident robotic curriculum. The curriculum distinguishes between novices compared to competent and expert surgeons, but not between competent and expert surgeons. Clinical training level does not affect the experience and mental workload using the robotic simulator, except for competent and expert surgeons' ability to better assess clinical application.
BACKGROUND: The da Vinci skills simulation curriculum has been validated in the literature. The updated simulator, SimNow, features restructured exercises that have not been formally validated. The purpose of this study is to validate the SimNow resident robotic basic simulation curriculum. This study also consists of a qualitative assessment that gives greater insight into the learner's experience completing the robotic curriculum. METHODS: There were 18 participants in this study: 6 novices, 6 competent surgeons, and 6 expert surgeons. The curriculum comprised 5 exercises; participants completed three consecutive scored trials. Computer-derived performance metrics were recorded. The NASA Task Load Index survey was used to assess subjective mental workload. Subjects were asked a series of open-ended questions regarding their experience that were recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified using an inductive method, and themes were generated. RESULTS: Performance metrics were significantly different between novice versus competent and expert surgeons. There was no significant difference in any score metric between competent and expert surgeons. On average, overall score percentages for competent and expert surgeons were between 90.4 and 92.8% versus 70.5% for novices (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01). Expert surgeons perceived a higher level of performance completing the exercises than novice surgeons (15.8 vs. 45.8, p = 0.02). Participants noted a similar robotic experience, utilizing efficiency of motion and visual field skills. Participants agreed on exercise strengths, exercise weaknesses, and software limitations. Competent and expert surgeons were better able to assess the exercises' clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: The SimNow curriculum is a valid simulation training as part of a general surgery resident robotic curriculum. The curriculum distinguishes between novices compared to competent and expert surgeons, but not between competent and expert surgeons. Clinical training level does not affect the experience and mental workload using the robotic simulator, except for competent and expert surgeons' ability to better assess clinical application.
Authors: Michael Connolly; Johnathan Seligman; Andrew Kastenmeier; Matthew Goldblatt; Jon C Gould Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Beiqun Zhao; Jenny Lam; Hannah M Hollandsworth; Arielle M Lee; Nicole E Lopez; Benjamin Abbadessa; Samuel Eisenstein; Bard C Cosman; Sonia L Ramamoorthy; Lisa A Parry Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tarek Alzahrani; Richard Haddad; Abdullah Alkhayal; Josée Delisle; Laura Drudi; Walter Gotlieb; Shannon Fraser; Simon Bergman; Frank Bladou; Sero Andonian; Maurice Anidjar Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Andrea Gavazzi; Ali N Bahsoun; Wim Van Haute; Kamran Ahmed; Oussama Elhage; Peter Jaye; M Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Imad Radi; Juan C Tellez; Rodrigo E Alterio; Daniel J Scott; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Madhuri B Nagaraj; Melissa E Hogg; Herbert J Zeh; Patricio M Polanco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 3.453