Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 815–821 | Cite as

Preliminary evaluation of the pattern cutting and the ligating loop virtual laparoscopic trainers

  • A. Chellali
  • W. Ahn
  • G. Sankaranarayanan
  • J. T. Flinn
  • S. D. Schwaitzberg
  • D. B. Jones
  • Suvranu De
  • C. G. L. Cao



The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) trainer is currently the standard for training and evaluating basic laparoscopic skills. However, its manual scoring system is time-consuming and subjective. The Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Skill Trainer (VBLaST©) is the virtual version of the FLS trainer which allows automatic and real time assessment of skill performance, as well as force feedback. In this study, the VBLaST© pattern cutting (VBLaST-PC©) and ligating loop (VBLaST-LL©) tasks were evaluated as part of a validation study. We hypothesized that performance would be similar on the FLS and VBLaST© trainers, and that subjects with more experience would perform better than those with less experience on both trainers.


Fifty-five subjects with varying surgical experience were recruited at the Learning Center during the 2013 SAGES annual meeting and were divided into two groups: experts (PGY 5, surgical fellows and surgical attendings) and novices (PGY 1-4). They were asked to perform the PC or the ligating loop task on the FLS and the VBLaST© trainers. Their performance scores for each trainer were calculated and compared.


There were no significant differences between the FLS and VBLaST© scores for either the PC or the ligating loop task. Experts’ scores were significantly higher than the scores for novices on both trainers.


This study showed that the subjects’ performance on the VBLaST© trainer was similar to the FLS performance for both tasks. Both the VBLaST-PC© and the VBLaST-LL© tasks permitted discrimination between the novice and expert groups. Although concurrent and discriminant validity has been established, further studies to establish convergent and predictive validity are needed. Once validated as a training system for laparoscopic skills, the system is expected to overcome the current limitations of the FLS trainer.


Surgical training Virtual reality (VR) Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Surgical Trainer (VBLaST) Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Skills (FLS) Force feedback 



This project was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant NIBIB R01 EB010037-01. This research was conducted in collaboration with the SAGES FLS Committee.


Dr. Steven, D. Schwaitzberg is a consultant for Stryker and Olympus and member of the advisory board for NeatStitch, AcuityBio, MITI, Cambridge Endo, and Surgiquest. Jeff Flinn and Drs. Amine Chellali, Woojin Ahn, Ganesh Sankaranarayanan, Daniel B. Jones, Suvranu De, and Caroline, G.L. Cao have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Maithel S, Sierra R, Korndorffer J, Neumann P, Dawson S, Callery M, Jones D, Scott D (2006) Construct and face validity of MIST-VR, Endotower, and CELTS: are we ready for skills assessment using simulators? Surg Endosc 20(1):104–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cao C, MacKenzie C (1997) “Direct, 2-D vs. 3-D endoscopic viewing & surgical task performance,” A Symposium on Evolving Technologies: Surgeons’ Performance of Surgical Tasks. J. Sport and Exercise Psychology 19Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adrales GL, Chu U, Witzke D, Donnelly M, Hoskins JD (2003) Evaluating minimally invasive surgery training using low-cost mechanical simulations. Surg Endosc 17:580–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peters J, Fried G, Swanstrom L, Soper N, Sillin L, Schirmer B, Hoffman K, Sages FLS Committee (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135(1):21–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Powers T, Murayama K, Toyama M, Murphy S, Denham E, Derossis A, Joehl R (2002) House staff performance is improved by participation in a laparoscopic skills curriculum. Am J Surg 184:626–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fraser SA, Klassen DR, Feldman LS, Ghitulescu GA, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2003) valuating laparoscopic skills: setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg Endosc 17(6):964–967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fried GM (2008) FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Gastrointest Surg 12(2):210–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Botden S, Buzink S, Schijven MJJ (2007) Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? World J Surg 31(4):764–772CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sankaranarayanan G, Lin H, Arikatla V, Mulcare M, Zhang L, Derevianko A, Lim R, Fobert D, Cao C, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D, De S (2010) Preliminary face and construct validation study of a virtual basic laparoscopic skill trainer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20(2):153–157CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chellali A, Dumas C, Milleville-Pennel I (2012) Haptic communication to support biopsy procedures learning in virtual environments. Presence Teleop Virtual Environ 21(4):470–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grantcharov T, Rosenberg J, Pahle E, Fench P (2001) Virtual reality computer simulation. Surg Endosc 15:242–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reich O, Noll M, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Waidelich R, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Baumgartner R, Hofstetter A, Stief C (2006) High-level virtual reality simulator for endourologic procedures of lower urinary tract. Urology 67(6):1144–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dang T, Annaswamy T, Srinivasan M (2001) Development and evaluation of an epidural injection simulator with force feedback for medical training. Stud Health Technol Inform 81:97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panait L, Akkary E, Bell R, Roberts K, Dudrick S, Duffy A (2009) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res 156(2):312–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Bri BMK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–464CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ström P, Hedman L, Särnå L, Kjellin A, Wredmark T, Felländer-Tsai L (2006) Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents. Surg Endosc 20(9):1383–1388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Eriksen J, Blirup D, Kristiansen V, Funch-Jensen P, Darzi A (2006) An evidence-based virtual reality training program for novice laparoscopic surgeons. Ann Surg 244(2):310–314CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    “Epona Medical | LAP-X”. Accessed 26 June 2013
  19. 19.
    Zhang A, Hünerbein M, Dai Y, Schlag P, Beller S (2008) Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgery simulator (Lap Mentor): evaluation of surgical skill with a virtual laparoscopic training simulator. Surg Endosc 22(6):1440–1444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iwata N, Fujiwara M, Kodera Y, Tanaka C, Ohashi N, Nakayama G, Koike M, Nakao A (2011) Construct validity of the LapVR virtual-reality surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 25(2):423–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ayodeji ID, Schijven M, Jakimowicz J, Greve JW (2007) Face validation of the Simbionix LAP Mentor virtual reality training module and its applicability in the surgical curriculum. Surg Endosc 21(9):1641–1649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salkini MW, Doarn CR, Kiehl N, Broderick TJ, Donovan JF, Gaitonde K (2010) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic training using the LapMentor II. J Endourol 24(1):99–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gallagher AG, O’Sullivan GC (2012) Human factors in acquiring medical skills; learning and skill acquisition in surgery. In: Gallagher A, O’Sullivan G (eds) Fundamentals of surgical simulation. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 98–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arikatla V, Sankaranarayanan G, Ahn W, Chellali A, De S, Cao C, Hwabejire J, DeMoya M, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D (2013) Face and construct validation of a virtual peg transfer simulator. Surg Endosc 27(5):1721–1729CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang L, Sankaranarayanan G, Arikatla V, Ahn W, Grosdemouge C, Rideout J, Epstein S, De S, Schwaitzberg S, Jones D, Cao CGL (2013) Characterizing the learning curve of the VBLaST-PT© (Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Skill Trainer). Surg Endosc 27(10):3603–3615CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Flinn J, Wood D, Cao C (2013) Technology-based procedure for automatic and objective error measurement in FLS pattern cutting task. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES 2013), Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    ISO (1999) Human-centred design processes for interactive systems (ISO 13407:1999). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Chellali
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. Ahn
    • 3
  • G. Sankaranarayanan
    • 3
  • J. T. Flinn
    • 4
  • S. D. Schwaitzberg
    • 1
  • D. B. Jones
    • 5
  • Suvranu De
    • 3
  • C. G. L. Cao
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Cambridge Health AllianceHarvard Medical SchoolCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computing EngineeringUniversity of Evry, IBISC LaboratoryEvryFrance
  3. 3.Center for Modeling, Simulation and Imaging in MedicineRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations