Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simulation in Robotic Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation ((CHS))

Abstract

Simulation is currently used in robotic-assisted surgery to advance skills development, establish credentialing guidelines, and further the field of minimally invasive surgery. As robotic-assisted surgery continues to grow, nationally installed curricula as well as rigorous and continuous training will shape the future. Robotic simulation can be as simple as a box trainer to expensive and technologically innovative virtual reality simulators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lendvay TS, et al. VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the dV-trainer robotic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;132:242–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhong W, Mancuso P. Utilization and surgical skill transferability of the simulator robot to the clinical robot for urology surgery. Urol Int. 2017;98(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar A, Smith R, Patel VR. Current status of robotic simulators in acquisition of robotic surgical skills. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(2):168–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellen G. Introducing RoSS, a “flight simulator” for robotic surgery. Buffalo: University at Buffalo; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Intuitive Surgical Inc. Skills Simulator for the da Vinci SI Surgical System; 2012; da Vinci Skills Simulator; 2016 [cited 21 Dec 2016]. Available from: http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/skills_simulator/

  6. Xu S, et al. Face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of a novel robotic surgery patient-side simulator: the Xperience Team Trainer. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3334–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. da Vinci® Skills Simulator (DVSS). Mimic Technologies Inc. Seattle, WA. Available at: https://mimicsimulation.com/da-vinci-skills-simulator/

  8. Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS). Simulated Surgical Systems LLC. San Jose, CA. Available at: http://www.simulatedsurgicals.com/ross.html

  9. RobotiX Mentor 3D Systems (formerly Simbionix). Littleton, CO. Available at: https://simbionix.com/simulators/robotix-mentor/

  10. McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):244–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  12. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stefanidis D, et al. Simulation in surgery: what’s needed next? Ann Surg. 2015;261(5):846–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hung AJ, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186(3):1019–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kelly DC, et al. Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology. 2012;79(5):1068–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hertz AM, George EI, Vaccaro CM, Brand TC. “Head to head” comparison of three state of the art virtuality robotic surgery simulators. Military Surgical Symposium 2018. Presentation MSS24, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liss MA, et al. Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci Trainer™ and the da Vinci surgical skills simulator™ using the Mimic™ software for urologic robotic surgical education. J Endourol. 2012;26(12):1629–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tanaka A, et al. Robotic surgery simulation validity and usability comparative analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3720–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kenney PA, et al. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology. 2009;73(6):1288–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sethi AS, et al. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol. 2009;23(3):503–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Perrenot C, et al. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer((R)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2587–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Korets R, et al. Face and construct validity assessment of 2nd generation robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;185(4):e488.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee JY, et al. Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator role as an assessment tool? J Urol. 2012;187(3):998–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Seixas-Mikelus SA, et al. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology. 2010;76(2):357–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stegemann AP, et al. Development, implementation, and validation of a simulation-based curriculum for Robot-assisted surgery. In: AUA poster session. Atlanta, GA; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Whittaker G, et al. Validation of the RobotiX Mentor robotic surgery simulator. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):338–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Seixas-Mikelus SA, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1130–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Colaco M, et al. Initial experiences with RoSS surgical simulator in residency training: a validity and model analysis. J Robot Surg. 2013;7(1):71–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Finnegan KT, et al. da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology. 2012;80(2):330–5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Raza SJ, et al. Construct validation of the key components of fundamental skills of robotic surgery (FSRS) curriculum a multi-institution prospective study. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):316–24.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hung AJ, et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol. 2012;187(2):630–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lerner MA, et al. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol. 2010;24(3):467–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Korets R, et al. Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology. 2011;78(6):1326–30.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chowriappa AJ, et al. Development and validation of a composite scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training the robotic skills assessment score. J Surg Res. 2013;185(2):561–9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Culligan P, et al. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stegemann AP, et al. Development, implementation, and validation of a simulation- based curriculum for robot- assisted surgery. J Urol. 2013;81(4):767–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fantola G, et al. Simulator practice is not enough to become a robotic surgeon: the driving lessons model. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(4):260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Thomas M. The role of simulation in the development of technical competence during surgical training: a literature review. Int J Med Educ. 2013;4(1):48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huser AS, et al. Simulated life-threatening emergency during robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28(6):717–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee YL, Kilic GS, Phelps JY. Medicolegal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot-assisted surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):512–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rogers SO Jr, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006;140(1):25–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kahol K, et al. Effect of fatigue on psychomotor and cognitive skills. Am J Surg. 2008;195:195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. The Chamberlain Group. Products. 2016 [cited 22 Dec 2016]. Available from: https://www.thecgroup.com/.

  44. Martin KD, et al. Arthroscopic basic task performance in shoulder simulator model correlates with similar task performance in cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(21):e1271–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hamilton EC, et al. Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(3):406–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gilbody J, et al. The use and effectiveness of cadaveric workshops in higher surgical training: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;95(3):347–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rehman S, et al. Simulation-based robot-assisted surgical training: a health economic evaluation. Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):841–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Auer JA, et al. Refining animal models in fracture research: seeking consensus in optimising both animal welfare and scientific validity for appropriate biomedical use. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kang SG, et al. The tube 3 module designed for practicing vesicourethral anastomosis in a virtual reality robotic simulator: determination of face, content, and construct validity. Urology. 2014;84(2):345–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ruparel RK, et al. Assessment of virtual reality robotic simulation performance by urology resident trainees. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):302–8.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lallas CD, Davis JW, Members Of The Society Of Urologic Robotic. Robotic surgery training with commercially available simulation systems in 2011: a current review and practice pattern survey from the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Endourol. 2012;26(3):283–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Goh AC, et al. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol. 2012;187(1):247–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Martin JA, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84:273–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Aghazadeh MA, et al. External validation of global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc. 2015;29(11):3261–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Holst D, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: an adjunct to urology resident surgical simulation training. J Endourol. 2015;29(5):604–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Holst D, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: differentiating animate surgical skill through the wisdom of crowds. J Endourol. 2015;29(10):1183–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Chen C, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res. 2014;187(1):65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. White LW, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skill: a valid method for discriminating basic robotic surgery skills. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. DiMaio S, Hasser C. The da Vinci research interface. Published in the MIDAS Journal – Systems and Architectures for Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI 2008 Workshop). Accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/10380/1464

  61. Kumar R, et al. Assessing system operation skills in robotic surgery trainees. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8(1):118–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hung AJ, et al. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int. 2013;112(6):864–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Fisher RA, et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg. 2015;13:115–23.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gallagher A, O’Sullivan GC. Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation: Principles and Practices. London: Springer Verlag; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Smith R, Patel V, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(3):379–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zevin B, et al. A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(4):580–586.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Harders M. Surgical scene generation for virtual reality-based training in medicine. London: Springer; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  68. Gallagher AG, et al. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):364–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jeff Berkley, PhD, founder and CEO of Mimic Technologies, for his valuable contributions to the section on the history of robotic simulation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center/Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Tacoma, WA, USA

    Evalyn I. George

  2. Florida Hospital, Nicholson Center, Celebration, FL, USA

    Roger Smith

  3. Institute for Surgical Excellence, Newtown Square, PA, USA

    Jeffrey S. Levy

  4. Department of Urology, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA, USA

    Timothy C. Brand

Authors
  1. Evalyn I. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey S. Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy C. Brand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy C. Brand .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Vice Chair of Education, Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  2. Vice Chair of Education, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    James R. Korndorffer Jr.

  3. Executive Director WISH and CREST, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Robert Sweet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

George, E.I., Smith, R., Levy, J.S., Brand, T.C. (2019). Simulation in Robotic Surgery. In: Stefanidis, D., Korndorffer Jr., J., Sweet, R. (eds) Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties. Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98276-2_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98275-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98276-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation