An advanced simulator for orthopedic surgical training

  • J. Cecil
  • Avinash Gupta
  • Miguel Pirela-Cruz
Original Article



The purpose of creating the virtual reality (VR) simulator is to facilitate and supplement the training opportunities provided to orthopedic residents. The use of VR simulators has increased rapidly in the field of medical surgery for training purposes. This paper discusses the creation of the virtual surgical environment (VSE) for training residents in an orthopedic surgical process called less invasive stabilization system (LISS) surgery which is used to address fractures of the femur.


The overall methodology included first obtaining an understanding of the LISS plating process through interactions with expert orthopedic surgeons and developing the information centric models. The information centric models provided a structured basis to design and build the simulator. Subsequently, the haptic-based simulator was built. Finally, the learning assessments were conducted in a medical school.


The results from the learning assessments confirm the effectiveness of the VSE for teaching medical residents and students. The scope of the assessment was to ensure (1) the correctness and (2) the usefulness of the VSE. Out of 37 residents/students who participated in the test, 32 showed improvements in their understanding of the LISS plating surgical process. A majority of participants were satisfied with the use of teaching Avatars and haptic technology. A paired t test was conducted to test the statistical significance of the assessment data which showed that the data were statistically significant.


This paper demonstrates the usefulness of adopting information centric modeling approach in the design and development of the simulator. The assessment results underscore the potential of using VR-based simulators in medical education especially in orthopedic surgery.


Virtual reality (VR) Orthopedic simulator LISS plating Surgery 



We would like to acknowledge funding received from the National Science Foundation through Grant Number CNS 1257803 and the Interdisciplinary Planning Grant program from Oklahoma State University (Office of the Provost).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

J. Cecil, Avinash Gupta and Miguel Pirela-Cruz declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All human studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2008 (5). This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Peters TM, Linte CA, Moore J, Bainbridge D, Jones DL, Guiraudon GM (2008) Towards a medical virtual reality environment for minimally invasive cardiac surgery. In: International workshop on medical imaging and virtual reality. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Qin J, Pang WM, Chui YP, Wong TT, Heng PA (2010) A novel modeling framework for multilayered soft tissue deformation in virtual orthopedic surgery. J Med Syst 34:261–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delp Scott L, Peter Loan J (1995) A graphics-based software system to develop and analyze models of musculoskeletal structures. Comput Biol Med 25(1):21–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsai MD, Hsieh MS, Jou SB (2001) Virtual reality orthopedic surgery simulator. Comput Biol Med 31:333–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gertsch KR, Kitzmann A, Larson SA, Olson RJ, Longmuir RA, Sacher BA, Longmuir SQ (2015) Description and validation of a structured simulation curriculum for strabismus surgery. J Am Assoc Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 19(1):3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kunkler K (2006) The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robot Comput Assisted Surg 2(3):203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cosman PH, Cregan PC, Martin CJ, Cartmill JA (2002) Virtual reality simulators: current status in acquisition and assessment of surgical skills. ANZ J Surg 72(1):30–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Tolsdorff B, Pommert A, Höhne KH, Petersik A, Pflesser B, Tiede U, Leuwer R (2010) Virtual reality: a new paranasal sinus surgery simulator. Laryngoscope 120(2):420–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choi KS, Soo S, Chung FL (2009) A virtual training simulator for learning cataract surgery with phacoemulsification. Comput Biol Med 39(11):1020–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Echegaray G, Herrera I, Aguinaga I, Buchart C, Borro D (2014) A brain surgery simulator. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 34(3):12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luciano C, Banerjee P, DeFanti T (2009) Haptics-based virtual reality periodontal training simulator. Virtual Real 13(2):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi Y, Xiong Y, Hua X, Tan K, Pan X (2015) Key techniques of haptic related computation in virtual liver surgery. In: 2015 8th international conference on biomedical engineering and informatics (BMEI). IEEE, pp 355–359Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu L, Wang T, Wang W, Wang Z, Zhang B (2013) A geometric modeling method based on OpenGL in virtual gallbladder surgery. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computer science and electronics engineering. Atlantis PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sørensen TS, Therkildsen SV, Makowski P, Knudsen JL, Pedersen EM (2001) A new virtual reality approach for planning of cardiac interventions. Artif Intell Med 22(3):193–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berlage T, Schmitgen A, Schmitz C, Welz A (2001) Simulation and planning of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery. In: International congress series vol 1230. Elsevier, pp 68–72Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park JW, hoi J, Park Y, Sun K (2011) Haptic virtual fixture for robotic cardiac catheter navigation. Artif Organs 35(11):1127–1131. ISSN 0160-564XGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Citak M, Gardner MJ, Kendoff D, Tarte S, Krettek C, Nolte LP, Hüfner T (2008) Virtual 3D planning of acetabular fracture reduction. J Orthop Res 26(4):547–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Assassi L, Charbonnier C, Schmid J, Volino P, Magnenat-Thalmann N (2009) From MRI to anatomical simulation of the hip joint. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 20(1):53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jun Y, Park S (2011) Polygon-based 3D surgical planning system for hip operation. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 12(1):157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kovler I, Joskowicz L, Weil YA, Khoury A, Kronman A, Mosheiff R, Salavarrieta J (2015) Haptic computer-assisted patient-specific preoperative planning for orthopedic fractures surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(10):1535–1546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nahvi A, Moghaddam M, Arbabtafti M, Mahvash M, Richardson B (2016) Virtual bone surgery using a haptic robot. Int J Robot Theory Appl 1(1):1–12Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seah TET, Barrow A, Baskaradas A, Gupte C, Bello F (2014) A virtual reality system to train image guided placement of kirschner-wires for distal radius fractures. In: International symposium on biomedical simulation. Springer, pp 20–29Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsai MD, Liu CS, Liu HY, Hsieh MS, Tsai FC (2011) Virtual reality facial contouring surgery simulator based on CT transversal slices. In: 2011 5th international conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering (ICBBE). IEEE, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vankipuram M, Kahol K, McLaren A, Panchanathan S (2010) A virtual reality simulator for orthopedic basic skills: a design and validation study. J Biomed Inform 43(5):661–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blyth P, Stott NS, Anderson IA (2007) A simulation-based training system for hip fracture fixation for use within the hospital environment. Injury 38(10):1197–1203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bayonat S, García M, Mendoza C, Ferniindez JM (2006) Shoulder arthroscopy training system with force feedback. In: International conference on medical information visualisation-biomedical visualisation (MedVis’ 06). IEEE, pp 71–76Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pettersson J, Palmerius KL, Knutsson H, Wahlstrom O, Tillander B, Borga M (2008) Simulation of patient specific cervical hip fracture surgery with a volume haptic interface. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(4):1255–1265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsai MD, Hsieh MS, Tsai CH (2007) Bone drilling haptic interaction for orthopedic surgical simulator. Comput Biol Med 37(12):1709–1718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin Y, Wang X, Wu F, Chen X, Wang C, Shen G (2014) Development and validation of a surgical training simulator with haptic feedback for learning bone-sawing skill. J Biomed Inform 48:122–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morris D, Sewell C, Blevins N, Barbagli F, Salisbury K (2004) A collaborative virtual environment for the simulation of temporal bone surgery. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, Berlin, pp 319–327Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sabri H, Cowan B, Kapralos B, Porte M, Backstein D, Dubrowskie A (2010) Serious games for knee replacement surgery procedure education and training. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2(2):3483–3488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL, Roberts KE, Dudrick SJ, Duffy AJ (2009) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res 156(2):312–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morris D, Tan H, Barbagli F, Chang T, Salisbury K (2007) Haptic feedback enhances force skill learning. In: EuroHaptics conference, 2007 and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems. World Haptics 2007. Second Joint. IEEE, pp 21–26Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Debes AJ, Aggarwal R, Balasundaram I, Jacobsen MB (2010) A tale of two trainers: virtual reality versus a video trainer for acquisition of basic laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 199(6):840–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fleming JB, Rege RV, Laycock R, Bergen PC, Tesfay ST, Jones DB (2002) Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 16(3):406–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jalote-Parmar A, Badke-Schaub P (2008) Workflow integration matrix: a framework to support the development of surgical information systems. Des Stud 29(4):338–368Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jannin P (2013) Surgical process modeling: methods and applications. In: Presentation at the 2013 medicine meets virtual reality conference (NEXTMED/ MMVR20), Feb 20–23. San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nemani A, Sankaranarayan G, Roberts K, Panait L, Cao, C, De S (2013) Hierarchical task analysis of hybrid rigid scope natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) Cholecystectomy Procedures. In: Proceedings of the 2013 medicine meets virtual reality conference (NEXTMED/ MMVR20), Feb 20-23, San Diego, pp 293–297Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cecil J, Ramanathan P, Prakash A, Pirela-Cruz M (2013) Collaborative virtual environments for orthopedic surgery. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual IEEE international conference on automation science and engineering (IEEE CASE 2013), Aug 17–21, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cecil J, Avinash G, Miguel PC, Rajkumar M, Ramanathan P (2016) A virtual reality based simulation environment for orthopedic surgery, Industry Case Studies Program, OTM, Oct 24–28, Rhodes, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Muthaiyan A, Cecil J (2008) A virtual environment for satellite assembly. Comput Aided Des Appl 5(1–4):526–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cecil J (2015) Modeling the process of creating virtual prototypes. Comput Aided Des Appl 6(1–4):1–4Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    IDEF methods.
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
    Abdurazik A, Offutt J (2000) Using UML collaboration diagrams for static checking and test generation. In: International conference on the unified modeling language. Springer, Berlin, pp 383–395Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cecil J, Pirela-Cruz M (2010) Development of an information model for a virtual surgical environment. In: Proceedings of the TMCE 2010, Apr 12–16, Ancona, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cecil J, Pirela-Cruz M (2013) An information model for designing virtual environments for orthopedic surgery. In: Proceedings of the 2013 EI2N workshop, OTM workshops, Graz, Austria. Vol 8186, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 218-227Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    SYNTHES (2000) Less invasive stabilization system (LISS).
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
  55. 55.
    Nielsen J (2012) “Usability 101: introduction to usability”. Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved 7 Aug 2016Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tergas AI, Sheth SB, Green IC, Giuntoli RL (2013) A pilot study of surgical training using a virtual robotic surgery simulator. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 17(2):219Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Verdaasdonk EGG, Dankelman J, Lange JF, Stassen LPS (2008) Transfer validity of laparoscopic knot-tying training on a VR simulator to a realistic environment: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 22(7):1636–1642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Howells NR, Gill HS, Carr AJ, Price AJ, Rees JL (2008) Transferring simulated arthroscopic skills to the operating theatre. Bone Joint J 90(4):494–499Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Cyber Physical Systems, Computer ScienceOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Surgery, Paul Foster School of MedicineTexas Tech Health Sciences Center (TTHSC)El PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations