Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 371–377 | Cite as

Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges

  • Eoin MacCraithEmail author
  • James C. Forde
  • Niall F. Davis
Review Article

Abstract

Simulation in surgery is a safe and cost-effective way of training. Operating room performance is improved after simulation training. The necessary attributes of surgical simulators are acceptability and cost-effectiveness. It is also necessary for a simulator to demonstrate face, content, predictive, construct and concurrent validity. Urologists have embraced robot-assisted surgery. These procedures require steep learning curves. There are 6 VR simulators available for robot-assisted surgery; the daVinci Skills Simulator (dVSS), the Mimic dV Trainer (MdVT), the ProMIS simulator, the Simsurgery Educational Platform (SEP) simulator, the Robotic Surgical Simulator (RoSS) and the RobotiX Mentor (RM). Their efficacy is limited by the lack of comparative studies, standardisation of validation and high cost. There are a number of robotic surgery training curricula developed in recent years which successfully include simulation training. There are growing calls for these simulators to be incorporated into the urology training curriculum globally to shorten the learning curve without compromising patient safety. Surgical educators in urology should aim to develop a cost-effective, acceptable, validated simulator that can be incorporated into a standardised, validated robot-assisted surgery training curriculum for the next generation of robotic surgeons.

Keywords

Robot Robotic Surgery Simulation Training Urology 

Abbreviations

RAS

Robot-assisted surgery

dVSS

daVinci Skills Simulator

MdVT

Mimic dV Trainer

SEP

Simsurgery Educational Platform

RoSS

Robotic Surgical Simulator

RM

RobotiX Mentor

TURP

Transurethral resection of the prostate

TURBT

Transurethral resection of bladder tumour

RCT

Randomised controlled trial

Notes

Author contributions

JF performed project development and collected data. ND edited the manuscript. EM collected data and wrote the manuscript.

Funding

No funding received.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Ethics statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol 10(4):520–523Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoznek A (2008) History of robotic surgery in urology. In: John H, Wiklund P (eds) Robotic urology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML (2009) Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. Urol Oncol 27:214–217Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guru KA, Kuvshinoff BW, Pavlov- Shapiro S et al (2007) Impact of robotics and laparoscopy on surgical skills: a comparative study. J Am Coll Surg 204:96–101Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM et al (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133(6):614e21Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosen KR (2008) The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care 23:157–166Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kallstrom R, Hjertberg H, Svanvik J (2010) Impact of virtual reality-simulated training on urology residents’ performance of transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol/Endourol Soc 24(9):1521e8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fleming JB et al (2002) Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 16(3):406–411Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Limberg AA (1984) The planning of local plastic operations on the body surface: theory and practice. DC Health and Company, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agha RA, Fowler AJ (2015) The role and validity of surgical simulation. Int Surg 100(2):350–357Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–463 (discussion 463–4) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ACGME (2008) Program requirements of graduate medical education in surgery. Residency Review Committee. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int 111(2):194–205Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brewin J, Ahmed K, Challacombe B (2014) An update and review of simulation in urological training. Int J Surg 12(2):103–108Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schout BM, Muijtjens AM, Hendrikx AJ et al (2010) Acquisition of flexible cystoscopy skills on a virtual reality simulator by experts and novices. BJU Int 105:234–239Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mishra S, Kurien A, Patel R et al (2010) Validation of virtual reality simulation for percutaneous renal access training. J Endourol 24:635–640Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amirian MJ, Lindner SM, Trabulsi EJ et al (2014) Surgical suturing training with virtual reality simulation versus dry lab practice: an evaluation of performance improvement, content, and face validity. J Robotic Surg 8:329–335Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186:1019–1024Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ et al (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73:1288–1292Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feifer A, Al-Ammari A, Kovac E et al (2011) Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training. BJU Int 108:1652–1656Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jonsson MN, Mahmood M, Askerud T et al (2011) ProMIS can serve as a da Vinci® simulator—a construct validity study. J Endourol 25:345–350Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDonough P, Peterson A, Brand T (2010) Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance. J Urol 183(Suppl.):e515Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shamim Khan M, Ahmed K, Gavazzi A et al (2013) Development and implementation of centralized simulation training: evaluation of feasibility, acceptability and construct validity. BJU Int 111(3):518–523Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2008) Short-phase training on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance in tele-robotic surgery. Int J Med Robot 4(2):139–145Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:146–150Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guru KA, Baheti A, Kesavadas T et al (2009) In-vivo videos enhance cognitive skills for Da Vinci surgical system. J Urol 181(Suppl.):823 (abstract 2272) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kesavadas T, Kumar A, Srimathveeravalli G et al (2009) Efficacy of robotic surgery simulator (RoSS) for the da Vinci® surgical system. J Urol 181(Suppl.):823Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T et al (2011) Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 107:1130–1135Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Le CQ, Lightner DJ, VanderLei L et al (2007) The current role of medical simulation in American urological residency training programs: an assessment by program directors. J Urol 177(1):288–291Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ahmed K, Jawad M, Abboudi M et al (2011) Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review. J Urol 186:26–34Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hertz AM, George EI, Vaccaro CM et al (2018) Head-to-head comparison of three virtual-reality robotic surgery simulators. JSLS. 22(1):e2017.00081Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whittaker G, Aydin A, Raison N et al (2016) Validation of the robotiX mentor robotic surgery simulator. J Endourol 30(3):338–346Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schlottmann F, Long JM, Brown S et al (2018) Low confidence levels with the robotic platform among senior surgical residents: simulation training is needed. J Robot Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0853-y Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel H et al (2016) The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol Focus 2(1):105–108Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P et al (2015) Pilot Validation Study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum. Eur Urol 68(2):292–299Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stolzenburg JU, Qazi HA, Rai BP (2015) The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: the journey has only just begun. Eur Urol 68:300–301Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A et al (2015) An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg 13:115–123Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Veneziano D, Smith A, Reihsen T, Speich J, Sweet RM (2015) The SimPORTAL fluoro-less C-arm trainer: an innovative device for percutaneous kidney access. J Endourol 29:240–245Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2016) A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol 69(6):1065–1080Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roscoe SN, Williges BH (1980) Measurement of transfer of training. In: Roscoe SN (ed) Aviation psychology. The Iowa State University Press, IowaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kumar R, Hemal AK (2005 Oct) Emerging role of robotics in urology. J Minim Access Surg 1(4):202–210Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 76(2):357–360Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    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. Urology 78(6):1326–1330Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyConnolly HospitalDublin 15Ireland
  2. 2.Department of UrologyThe Austin HospitalMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations