Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of different time schedules in training with the Da Vinci simulator

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This prospective study analyzed the effect of different time schedules in training on the main performance outcomes: overall score, time to complete, and economy of motion.

Methods

The study was performed on the da Vinci Skills Simulator from December 2014 to April 2016. Forty robotic novices were randomized into two groups of 20 participants, which trained in the same three exercises but with different intervals between their training sessions. Each group performed training in Peg Board 1 in their first week, Match Board 2 in their second week, and Ring and Rail 2 in their third week. On their last day, Needle Targeting and Energy Dissection 2, for which no previous training had been received, were performed. Regarding the different training intervals, group 1 trained each exercise six times in a row once a week. Group 2 performed their training once a day for 5 days. Technical performance parameters were recorded by the Mimics simulator software for further analysis. In addition, the participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the robotics training.

Results

Group 2 performed significantly better compared to group 1 in the main metrics in the more advanced exercises. For the easier exercises, the training frequency did not lead to significant differences in performance outcome. A significant skills gain was seen between the first and last training sessions for all exercises in both groups.

Conclusions

Performance in the final exercise NT was significantly better in group 2 than group 1. Regarding ED 2, no difference was found between the two groups. As the training of group 2 led to significantly better outcomes, we suggest that, especially for advanced exercises, it seems to be more favorable to perform training every day for a short period than to train once a week six times in a row.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amodeo A, Linares Quevedo A, Joseph JV, Belgrano E, Patel HR (2009) Robotic laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Minerva Urol E Nefrol Ital. J Urol Nephrol 61:121–128

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Meier M, Horton K, John H (2016) Da Vinci© Skills Simulator™: is an early selection of talented console surgeons possible? J Robot Surg 10:289–296

  3. Gomez PP, Willis RE, van Sickle KR (2015) Development of a virtual reality robotic surgical curriculum using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Surg Endosc 29:2171–2179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer M, Gharagozloo F, Tempesta B, Margolis M, Strother E, Christenson D (2012) The learning curve of robotic lobectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 8:448–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting: the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174:269–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallagher AG, Traynor O (2008) Simulation in surgery: opportunity or threat? Ir J Med Sci 177:283–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schreuder HW, Wolswjik R, Zweemer RP, Schijven MP, Verheijen RH (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137–149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mukherjee M, Siu KC, Suh IH, Klutman A, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2009) A virtual reality training program for improvement of robotic surgical skills. Stud Health Technol Inform 142:210–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, Guru KA, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators: a systematic review. BJU Int 111:194–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alzahrani THR, Alkhayal A, Delisle J, Drudi L, Gotlieb W, Fraser S, Bergman S, Bladou F, Andonian S, Anidjar M (2013) Validation of the da Vinci surgical skill simulator across three surgical disciplines: a pilot study. Can Urol Assoc J 7:e520–e529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K, Desai MM, Gill IS, Goh AC (2013) Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int 112:864–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, Gill IS, Desai MM (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. Urology 186:1019–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Huynh VB, Etafy M, McDougall EM (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator: role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187:998–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S, Lusch A, Graversen J, Landman J, McDougall EM (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 26:1629–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramos P, Montez J, Tripp A, Ng CK, Gill IS, Hung AJ (2014) Face, content, construct and concurrent validity of dry laboratory exercises for robotic training using a global assessment tool. BJU Int 113:836–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2015) A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.021

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiely DJ, Gotlieb WH, Lau S, Zeng X, Samouelian V, Ramanakumar AV, Zakrzewski H, Brin S, Fraser SA, Korsieporn P, Drudi L, Press JZ (2015) Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial. J Robot Surg 9:179–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sheth SS, Fader AN, Tergas AI, Kushnir CL, Green IC (2014) Virtual reality robotic surgical simulation: an analysis of gynecology trainees. J Surg Educ 71:125–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Walliczek-Dworschak U, Mandapathil M, Förtsch A, Teymoortash A, Dworschak P, Werner JA, Güldner C (2016) Structured training on the da Vinci skills simulator leads to improvement in technical performance of robotic novices. Clin Otolaryngol. doi:10.1111/coa.12666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Calatayud D, Arora S, Aggarwal R, Kruglikova I, Schulze S, Funch-Jensen P, Grantcharov T (2010) Warm-up in a virtual reality environment improves performance in the operating room. Ann Surg 251(6):1181–1185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kahol K, Satava RM, Ferrara J, Smith ML (2009) Effect of short-term pretrial practice on surgical proficiency in simulated environments: a randomized trial of the “preoperative warm-up” effect. J Am Coll Surg 208(2):255–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Walliczek U, Förtsch A, Dworschak P, Teymoortash A, Mandapathil M, Werner J, Güldner C (2015) Effect of training frequency on the learning curve on the da Vinci skills simulator. Head Neck. doi:10.1002/hed.24312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(2):219–226

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Marburg, University of Gießen and Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Germany

    C. Güldner, A. Orth, I. Diogo, M. Mandapathil, A. Teymoortash & U. Walliczek-Dworschak

  2. Center of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University Hospital of Marburg, University of Gießen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    P. Dworschak

Authors
  1. C. Güldner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Orth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Dworschak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I. Diogo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Mandapathil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Teymoortash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. U. Walliczek-Dworschak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Walliczek-Dworschak.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Christian Güldner, Annik Orth, Philipp Otto Georg Dworschak, Isabell Diogo, Magis Mandapathil, Afshin Teymoortash, and Ute Walliczek-Dworschak have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güldner, C., Orth, A., Dworschak, P. et al. Evaluation of different time schedules in training with the Da Vinci simulator. Surg Endosc 31, 4118–4125 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5460-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5460-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation