Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of the functionality of simulators of the da Vinci surgical robot

  • Dynamic Manuscript
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The implementation of robotic technology in minimally invasive surgery has led to the need to develop more efficient and effective training methods, as well as assessment and skill maintenance tools for surgical education. Multiple simulators and procedures are available for educational and training purposes. A need for comparative evaluations of these simulators exists to aid users in selecting an appropriate device for their purposes.

Methods

We conducted an objective review and comparison of the design and capabilities of all dedicated simulators of the da Vinci robot, the da Vinci Skill Simulator (DVSS) (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), dV-Trainer (dVT) (Mimic Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), and Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) (Simulated Surgical Skills, LLC, Williamsville, NY, USA). This provides base specifications of the hardware and software, with an emphasis on the training capabilities of each system.

Results

Each simulator contains a large number of training exercises, DVSS = 40, dVT = 65, and RoSS = 52 for skills development. All three offer 3D visual images but use different display technologies. The DVSS leverages the real robotic surgeon’s console to provide visualization, hand controls, and foot pedals. The dVT and RoSS created simulated versions of all of these control systems. They include systems management services which allow instructors to collect, export, and analyze the scores of students using the simulators.

Conclusions

This study is the first to provide comparative information of the three simulators functional capabilities with an emphasis on their educational skills. They offer unique advantages and capabilities in training robotic surgeons. Each device has been the subject of multiple validation experiments which have been published in the literature. But those do not provide specific details on the capabilities of the simulators which are necessary for an understanding sufficient to select the one best suited for an organization’s needs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schout BM, Hendriks AJ, Scheele F et al (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. J Surg Endosc 24(3):536–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wohaibi EM, Bush RW, Earle DB et al (2010) Surgical resident performance on a virtual reality simulator correlates with operating room performance. J Surg Res 160(1):67–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skills simulator for the da Vinci Si surgical system (users manual) (2012) Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale

  4. dV-Trainer robotic simulator users manual (2012) Mimic Technologies Inc., Seattle

  5. Robotic surgery simulator users manual: for models S and Si (2012) Simulated Surgical Systems LLC, Williamsville

  6. McDougall EM (2007) Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 21(3):244–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186(3):1019–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. J Urol 79(5):1068–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S (2012) 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 26(12):1629–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lendvay, Casale P, Sweet R, Peters C (2008) Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J Robot Surg 2(3):145–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kenney P, Wszolek M, Gould J, Libertino J, Moinzadeh A (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-Trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. J Urol 73(6):1288–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y (2009) Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 23(3):503–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer(®) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. J Surg Endosc 26(9):2587–2593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA, Gupta M, Benson MC, Cooper KL, Landman J, Badani KK (2011) Validating the use of the mimic dV-Trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. J Urol 78(6):1326–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator–role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187(3):998–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schreuder HWR, Persson JEU, Wolswijk RGH, Ihse I, Schijven MP, Verheijen RHM (2014) Validation of a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Sci World J 2014:507076. doi:10.1155/2014/507076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. J Urol 76(2):357–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, Rehman S, Sharif M, Rao A, DuPont N, Shi Y, Wilding,G, Hassett J, Guru K (2012) Development, implementation and validation of a simulation-based curriculum for robot-assisted surgery. Presented at the AUA poster session, Atlanta, 19–23 May 2012

  19. Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P (2012) Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 187(2):630–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Colaco M, Balica A, Su D (2012) Initial experiences with RoSS surgical simulator in residency training: a validity and model analysis. J Robot Surg 7(1):71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I (2012) da Vinci skills simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. J Urol 80(2):330–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Connolly M, Seligman J, Kastenmeier A, Goldblatt M, Gould JC (2014) Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3373-x

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lendvay TS, Brand TC, White L, Kowalewski T, Jonnadula S, Mercer LD, Khorsand D, Andros J, Hannaford B, Satava RM (2013) Virtual reality robotic surgery warm-up improves task performance in a dry laboratory environment: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Am Coll Surg 216:1181–1192

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Raza SJ, Chowriappa A, Stegemann A, Ahmed K, Shi Y, Wilding G, Kaouk J, Peabody J, Menon M, Kesavadas T, Guru KA. (2013) Construct validation of the fundamental skills of robotic surgery (FSRS) curriculum. Podium presentation, AUA annual congress, San Diego

  25. Tergas AI, Sheth SB, Green IC, Giuntoli RL 2nd, Winder AD, Fader AN (2013) A pilot study of surgical training using a virtual robotic surgery simulator. JSLS 17:219–226

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lerner M, Ayalew M, Peine W, Sundaram C (2010) Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci® surgical system? J Endourol 24(3):467–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chowriappa A, Raza SJ, Stegemann A, Ahmed K, Shi Y, Wilding G, Kaouk J, Peabody JO, Menon M, Kesavadas T, Guru KA (2013) Development & validation of a composite grading & scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training—the robotic skills assessment scale. Podium presentation, AUA annual congress, San Diego

  28. Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C (2014) Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:48–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stegemann A, Kesavadas T, Rehman S, Sharif M, Rao M, duPont N, Shi Y, Wilding G, Hassett J, Guru K (2013) Development, implementation, and validation of a simulation-based curriculum for robot-assisted surgery. J Urol 81(4):767–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahmed K, Chowriappa A, Din R, Field E, Raza SJ, Fazili A, Samarasekera D, Kaouk J, Eichel L, Joseph J, Ghazi A, Mohler J, Peabody J, Eun D, Shi Y, Wilding G, Kesavadas T, Guru KA (2013) A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of an augmented-reality based technical skill acquisition module for robot-assisted urethro-vesical anastomosis. Podium presentation, AUA annual congress, San Diego

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the following representatives of each simulator company for their assistance in collecting data and images, as well as verifying the accuracy of the contents of the paper. Peter Dominick, Intuitive Surgical Inc.; Jeff Berkley, Mimic Technologies, Inc.; and Kesh Kesavadas, Simulated Surgical Systems, LLC.

da Vinci Skills Simulator photos ©2013 Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Used with permission. dV-Trainer Simulator photos ©2013 Mimic Technologies, Inc. Used with permission. RoSS Simulator photos ©2013 Simulated Surgical Systems, LLC. Used with permission.

Funding Source

U.S. Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center. Grant #: W81XWH-11-2-0158.

Disclosures

Florida Hospital has received a research grant from Mimic Technologies Inc. for a project unrelated to this study. Roger Smith, Mireille Truong and Manuela Perez have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Hospital Nicholson Center, 404 Celebration Place, Celebration, FL, 34747, USA

    Roger Smith

  2. Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, 34747, USA

    Mireille Truong

  3. IADI-INSERM U947, Lorraine University, 54500, Nancy, France

    Manuela Perez

Authors
  1. Roger Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mireille Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuela Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger Smith.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 73241 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, R., Truong, M. & Perez, M. Comparative analysis of the functionality of simulators of the da Vinci surgical robot. Surg Endosc 29, 972–983 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3748-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3748-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation