Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1439–1445 | Cite as

Toward construct validity for a novel sensorized instrument-based minimally invasive surgery simulation system

  • S. Jayaraman
  • A. L. Trejos
  • M. D. Naish
  • A. Lyle
  • R. V. Patel
  • C. M. Schlachta
Article

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgical training is complicated due to the constraints imposed by the surgical environment. Sensorized laparoscopic instruments capable of sensing force in five degrees of freedom and position in six degrees of freedom were evaluated. Novice and expert laparoscopists performed the complex minimally invasive surgical task of suturing using the novel instruments. Their force and position profiles were compared. The novel minimally invasive surgical instrument proved to be construct valid and capable of detecting differences between novices and experts in a laparoscopic suturing task with respect to force and position. Further evaluation is mandated for a better understanding of the ability to predict performance based on force and position as well as the potential for new metrics in minimally invasive surgical education.

Keywords

Construct validity Minimally invasive surgery Minimally invasive surgical training Sensorized laparoscopic instruments Simulation system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Western Innovation Fund awarded to R. V. Patel by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under grants RGPIN-1345 (R. V. Patel), 312383-2005 (M. D. Naish) and under the Idea to Innovation grant I2IPJ/363985-07, as well as by infrastructure grants from the Canada Foundation for Innovation awarded to the London Health Sciences Centre (Canadian Surgical Technologies & Advanced Robotics) and to the University of Western Ontario (R. V. Patel). Financial support for Dr. Jayaraman was provided for by the Ontario Graduate Scholarship and for Ms. Trejos by an NSERC Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship.

Disclosures

C. M. Schlachta receives a consulting fee for serving on the Advisory Committee of Johnson & Johnson Medical Products and honoraria by Ethicon Endosurgery for speaking and teaching. S. Jayaraman, A. L. Trejos, M. D. Naish, A. Lyle, and R. V. Patel have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Fried GM (2008) FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Gastrointest Surg 12:210–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH, Fried GM (1998) The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 12:1117–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175:482–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fried GM, Feldman LS (2008) Objective assessment of technical performance. World J Surg 32:156–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aggarwal R, Darzi A, Grantcharov TP (2008) Re: a systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg 248:690–691 (author reply 691)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bann S, Davis IM, Moorthy K, Munz Y, Hernandez J, Khan M, Datta V, Darzi A (2005) The reliability of multiple objective measures of surgery and the role of human performance. Am J Surg 189:747–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Darzi A, Mackay S (2002) Skills assessment of surgeons. Surgery 131:121–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Bello F, Dosis A, Darzi A (2003) Motion analysis in the training and assessment of minimally invasive surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 12:137–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Sarker SK, Darzi A (2003) Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ 327:1032–1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith SG, Torkington J, Brown TJ, Taffinder NJ, Darzi A (2002) Motion analysis. Surg Endosc 16:640–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mackay S, Datta V, Mandalia M, Bassett P, Darzi A (2002) Electromagnetic motion analysis in the assessment of surgical skill: relationship between time and movement. ANZ J Surg 72:632–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trejos AL, Patel RV, Naish MD, Schlachta CM (2008) Design of a sensorized instrument for skills assessment and training in minimally invasive surgery. In: Proceedings of 2nd biennial IEEE/RAS-EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, pp 965–970Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trejos AL, Patel RV, Naish MD, Lyle A, Schlachta CM (2009) A sensorized instrument for skills assessment and training in minimally invasive surgery. J Med Devices 3(4):041002–13Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grantcharov TP, Funch-Jensen P (2009) Can everyone achieve proficiency with the laparoscopic technique? Learning curve patterns in technical skills acquisition. Am J Surg 197:447–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fraser SA, Klassen DR, Feldman LS, Ghitulescu GA, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2003) Evaluating laparoscopic skills: setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg Endosc 17:964–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunkin B, Adrales GL, Apelgren K, Mellinger JD (2007) Surgical simulation: a current review. Surg Endosc 21:357–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dosis A, Aggarwal R, Bello F, Moorthy K, Munz Y, Gillies D, Darzi A (2005) Synchronized video and motion analysis for the assessment of procedures in the operating theater. Arch Surg 140:293–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darzi A, Mackay S (2002) Recent advances in minimal access surgery. BMJ 324:31–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xeroulis G, Dubrowski A, Leslie K (2009) Simulation in laparoscopic surgery: a concurrent validity study for FLS. Surg Endosc 23:161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chmarra MK, Jansen FW, Grimbergen CA, Dankelman J (2008) Retracting and seeking movements during laparoscopic goal-oriented movements: is the shortest path length optimal? Surg Endosc 22:943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feldman LS, Sherman V, Fried GM (2004) Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 135:28–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vassiliou MC, Ghitulescu GA, Feldman LS, Stanbridge D, Leffondre K, Sigman HH, Fried GM (2006) The MISTELS program to measure technical skill in laparoscopic surgery: evidence for reliability. Surg Endosc 20:744–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Fraser SA, Charlebois P, Chaudhury P, Stanbridge DD, Fried GM (2007) Evaluating intraoperative laparoscopic skill: direct observation versus blinded videotaped performances. Surg Innov 14:211–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grantcharov TP (2008) Is virtual reality simulation an effective training method in surgery? Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:232–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grantcharov TP, Rosenberg J, Pahle E, Funch-Jensen P (2001) Virtual reality computer simulation. Surg Endosc 15:242–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Jayaraman
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. L. Trejos
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. D. Naish
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Lyle
    • 1
  • R. V. Patel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • C. M. Schlachta
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Lawson Health Research Institute, Canadian Surgical Technologies and Advanced Robotics (CSTAR)LondonCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  4. 4.London Health Sciences Centre University Hospital, Canadian Surgical Technologies and Advanced Robotics (CSTAR)LondonCanada

Personalised recommendations