Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gamification of robotic simulation to train general surgery residents

  • 2022 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Gamification applies game design elements to non-game contexts in order to engage participation and increase learner motivation. Robotic surgery is gaining popularity in general surgery but requires specialized technical skills. We sought to determine whether gamification of robotic simulation training could increase robotic simulator utilization among general surgery residents.

Methods

General surgery residents were recruited and sent weekly progress on simulator performance including leaderboards for 4 weeks during the intervention periods. There were also two control periods setup in an ABAB study design. Usage time and mean scores were compared between the control periods and intervention periods.

A post-study qualitative assessment interview using semi-structured interviews determined barriers and motivational components of simulator usage.

Results

Fifteen general surgery residents enrolled in the study (n = 15). Intervention increased total simulator usage time 9.7-fold from 153 to 1485 min. Total simulator days increased threefold from 9 to 27 days. Resident participation increased from 33 to 53%. Median average scores were higher during the intervention periods (58.8 and 81.9 vs 44.0). During the first intervention period, median individual-level simulator usage time increased 17 min (P = 0.03). However, there was no individual-level increase in median usage minutes or days during the second intervention period.

Qualitative assessment determined barriers to be limited time due to clinical duties, and simulator availability while motivational factors included competitive factors such as leaderboards and gaming aspects. Potential improvements were increasing attending visibility of scores to increase recognition of progress by the residents and creating dedicated time for training.

Conclusion

Gamification of robotic simulation training increased general surgery resident participation, usage time and scores. Impact was not durable. Instituting dedicated practice time and more attending engagement may increase trainee motivation and performance.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Intuitive Surgical, Inc (2020) Intuitive annual report 2020

  2. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1918911–e1918911. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Farivar BS, Flannagan M, Leitman IM (2015) General surgery residents’ perception of robot-assisted procedures during surgical training. J Surg Educ 72:235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Connolly M, Seligman J, Kastenmeier A et al (2014) Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc 28:1691–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3373-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I, Shichman SJ (2012) da Vinci skills simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 80:330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.02.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR et al (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci skills simulator. Urology 79:1068–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lendvay TS, Casale P, Sweet R, Peters C (2008) Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J Robot Surg 2:145–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-008-0099-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int 111:194–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Newcomb LK, Bradley MS, Truong T et al (2018) Correlation of virtual reality simulation and dry lab robotic technical skills. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25:689–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS et al (2020) Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg 272:384–392. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Krause C et al (2020) A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg Endosc 34:361–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06775-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tom CM, Maciel JD, Korn A et al (2019) A survey of robotic surgery training curricula in general surgery residency programs: how close are we to a standardized curriculum? The American Journal of Surgery 217:256–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jenison EL, Gil KM, Lendvay TS, Guy MS (2012) Robotic surgical skills: acquisition, maintenance, and degradation. JSLS 16:218–228. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812x13427982376185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Patel SG et al (2016) The impact of days off between cases on perioperative outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. World J Urol 34:269–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1605-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp 9–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramachandran V, Bashyam AM, Feldman SR (2019) A new spin on improving adherence. J Dermatol Treat 30:631–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2019.1652955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clement J (2021) Global gamification market value 2021. In: Statista. Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/608824/gamification-market-value-worldwide/. Accessed 5 Sep 2021

  18. Nevin CR, Westfall AO, Rodriguez JM et al (2014) Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Med J 90:685–693. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mokadam NA, Lee R, Vaporciyan AA et al (2015) Gamification in thoracic surgical education: using competition to fuel performance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 150:1052–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.07.064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hertz AM, George EI, Vaccaro CM, Brand TC (2018) Head-to-head comparison of three virtual-reality robotic surgery simulators. JSLS. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00081

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186:1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C et al (2014) Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:48–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Colaizzi PF (1978) Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  24. Morrow R, Rodriguez A, King N (2015) Colaizzi’s descriptive phenomenological method. Psychologist 28(8):643–644

    Google Scholar 

  25. Elmore LC, Jeffe DB, Jin L et al (2016) National survey of burnout among US general surgery residents. J Am Coll Surg 223:440–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.05.014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Yeo H, Bucholz E, Ann Sosa J et al (2010) A national study of attrition in general surgery training: which residents leave and where do they go? Ann Surg 252:529–534. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f2789c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Khoushhal Z, Hussain MA, Greco E et al (2017) Prevalence and causes of attrition among surgical residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 152:265–272. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kerfoot BP, Kissane N (2014) The use of gamification to boost residents’ engagement in simulation training. JAMA Surg 149:1208–1209. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sengupta N, Sengupta M (2015) Gamification: the new mantra for optimizing employee and organizational performance. Contemp Res Manag 4:127–148

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rutledge C, Walsh CM, Swinger N et al (2018) Gamification in action: theoretical and practical considerations for medical educators. Acad Med 93:1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted with funding provided by The SAGES Investigative Robotic Surgery Grant Award. This work was conducted with support from Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health Award UL1 TR002541 and financial contributions from Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers, or the National Institutes of Health. Support for protocol design and IRB application provided by the FIRST program, department of surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Icons in figures were created using free resources from Flaticon.com

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Keitaro Nakamoto, Daniel B. Jones & Souheil W. Adra

Authors
  1. Keitaro Nakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel B. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Souheil W. Adra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keitaro Nakamoto.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Keitaro Nakamoto: Received funding provided by SAGES through The SAGES Investigative Robotic Surgery Grant Award 2020. Daniel Jones: Owns stock and is on the medical advisory board for Allurion, receives royalties and is on the medical advisory board for Patient Apps. Souheil Adra: No conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakamoto, K., Jones, D.B. & Adra, S.W. Gamification of robotic simulation to train general surgery residents. Surg Endosc 37, 3136–3144 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09520-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09520-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation