Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of a multidisciplinary virtual reality (VR) robotic surgical curriculum

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective is to identify whether trainees demonstrate improvement in a standardized knot-tying task as assessed by Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) score after completion of a virtual reality (VR) robotic curriculum. An IRB-exempt prospective study was conducted with surgical trainees from August 2021 to February 2023. Participants initially performed a baseline robotic suturing task in which they were instructed to tie interrupted square knots in 10 min. Participants then completed a virtual reality simulation curriculum involving 23 exercises until they achieved 90% proficiency on all tasks. Participants then repeated the suturing task. Pre- and post-curriculum suturing tasks were recorded, de-identified, and scored by expert graders using a GEARS score. Trainees from three academic centers were invited to participate. Medical students (MS1–MS3) and surgical residents from gynecology, urology, and general surgery were invited to participate. Twenty-five trainees completed the pre-curriculum suturing task, the VR curriculum, and the post-curriculum suturing task. Trainees demonstrated significant improvement in their post-test GEARS score by 2.43 points (p < 0.05) and were able to tie three additional knots within 10 min after completion of the curriculum (p < 0.05). Trainees also demonstrated a faster time to complete first knot (114 s improvement, p < 0.05) after completion of the curriculum. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of the robotic curriculum helped them feel more comfortable using the robotic console, and improved their robotic surgical skills. Surgical trainees and medical students with limited prior robotic surgical experience demonstrated objective improvement after completion of a standardized VR curriculum.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Zendejas B, Brydges R, Hamstra S, Cook DA (2013) State of the evidence on simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg 257(4):586–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Raison N, Harrison P, Abe T, Aydin A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P (2021) Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised control trial. Surg Endosc 35:6897–6902

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Krause K, SAGES Robotic Task Force, Siu K, Oleynikov D (2020) A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. Surg Endosc 34(1):361–367. https://doi.org/10.10007/s00464-019-06775-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abboudi H, Kahn MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulator—a systematic review. BJU Int 111(2):194–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11270.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Albani JM, Lee DI (2007) Virtual reality-assisted robotic surgery simulation. J Endourol 21(3):285–287. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nathan A, Patel S, Georgi M et al (2023) Virtual classroom profciency-based progression for robotic surgery training (VROBOT): a randomised, prospective, cross-over, efectiveness study. J Robot Surg 17:629–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Meijden OAJ, Schiven MP (2009) The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc 23:1180–1190

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brinkmann C, Fritz M, Pankratius U et al (2017) Box- or virtual-reality trainer: which tool results in better transfer of laparoscopic basic skills?—a prospective randomized trial. J Surg Educ 74:724–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gleason A, Servais E, Quadri S et al (2022) Developing basic robotic skills using virtual reality simulation and automated assessment tools: a multidisciplinary robotic virtual reality-based curriculum using the da vinci skills simulator and tracking progress with the intuitive learning platform. J Robotic Surg 16:1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brinkman WM, Luursema JM, Kengen B, Schout BM, Witjes JA, Bekkers RL (2013) da Vinci skills simulator for assessing learning curve and criterion-based training of robotic basic skills. Urology 81(3):5626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.020. (Epub 2013 Jan 4. PMID: 23295136)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ et al (2015) External validation of global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc 29(11):3261–3266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goh AC et al (2012) Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 187(1):247–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hogg ME, Zenati M, Novak S et al (2016) Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables. Ann Surg 264(3):482–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Niitsu H, Hirabayashi N, Yoshimitsu M et al (2013) Using the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) global rating scale to evaluate the skills of surgical trainees in the operating room. Surg Today 43:271–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Farquharson AL, Cresswell AC, Beard JD, Chan P (2013) Randomized trial of the effect of video feedback on the acquisition of surgical skills. Br J Surg 100:1448–1453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wartime JM, Lenger SM, Feng XY et al (2023) Video playback as an educational tool for improving resident laparoscopic performance: a randomized controlled trial. JMIG 30:39–44

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gerull W, Zihni A, Awad M (2020) Operative performance outcomes of a simulator-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc 34:4543–4548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A et al (2015) Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 116(1):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12974. (Epub 2015 Mar 23 PMID: 25359658)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Panch T, Mattie H, Atun R (2019) Artificial Intelligence and algorithmic bias: implications for health systems. J Glob Health 9(2):020318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Alaker M, Wynn GR, Arulampalam T (2016) Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review & meta-analysis. Int J Surg 29:85–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Backhus LM, Lui NS, Cooke DT et al (2019) Unconscious bias. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2:259–267

    Google Scholar 

  22. Salles A, Mueller CM, Cohen GL (2016) A values affirmation intervention to improve female residents’ surgical performance. J Grad Med Educ 8:378–383

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerull KM, Loe M, Seiler K, McAllister J, Salles A (2019) Assessing gender bias in qualitative evaluations of surgical residents. Am J Surg 217(2):306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.09.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sexton KW, Hocking KM, Wise E et al (2012) Women in academic surgery: the pipeline is busted. J Surg Educ 69(1):84–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tannenbaum E, Walker M, Sullivan H, Huszti E, Farrugia M, Sobel M (2021) Effects of a resident’s reputation on laparoscopic skills assessment. Obstet Gynecol 138(1):16–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shaw T, Wood TJ, Touchie C, Pugh D, Humphrey-Murto SM (2021) How biased are you? The effect of prior performance information on attending physician ratings and implications for learner handover. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 26(1):199–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vogt VY, Givens VM, Keathley CA, Lipscomb GH, Summitt RL (2003) Is a resident’s score on a videotaped objective structured assessment of technical skills affected by revealing the resident’s identity? Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(3):688–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Minig L, Padilla-Iserta P, Zorrero C (2015) The relevance of gynecologic oncologists to provide high-quality of care to women with gynecological cancer. Front Oncol 5:308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ugwumadu L, Chakrabarti R, Williams-Brown E, Rendle J, Swift I, John B, Allen-Coward H, Ofuasia E (2017) The role of the multidisciplinary team in the management of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Gynecol Surg 14(1):15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Taberna M, Gil Moncayo F, Enric J-S, Antonio M, Arribas L, Evilajosana E, Peralvez Torres E, Mesia R (2020) The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach and quality of care. Front Oncol 10:85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gleason G (2022) Da Vinci Skills Simulator: Robotic Sim Tips and Tricks. YouTube. Link: https://www.youtube.com/@augustusgleason3196/videos

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Mullens CL, Van Horn AL, Marsh JW, Hogg ME, Thomay AA, Schmidt CR, Boone BA (2021) Development of a senior medical student robotic surgery training elective. J Med Educ Curric Dev 8:238212052110240. https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205211024074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Greenberg AL, Syed SM, Alseidi A et al (2023) Robotic training for medical students: feasibility of a pilot simulation curriculum. J Robotic Surg 17:1029–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Esposito A, Coppersmith NA, White EM, Yoo PS (2022) Video coaching in surgical education: utility, opportunities, and barriers to implementation. J Surg Educ 79(3):717–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors have no acknowledgments to report.

Funding

This publication was supported by the Robert E. Weiss Grant # 20213613.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology, Beth Israel Lahey Health, 41 Burlington Mall Road, Burlington, MA, 01803, USA

    Jessica S. Kim & Valena Wright

  2. Division of Surgical Simulation, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Burlington, MA, USA

    Nicholas Jonas, Deanna Plewa & Caroline Ricard

  3. Department of General Surgery, New York-Presbyterian Queens, Flushing, New York, USA

    Nicholas Jonas

  4. Beth Israel Lahey Health, Burlington, MA, USA

    Tasneem Zaihra Rizvi & Zhibang Lin

  5. Department of General Surgery, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Burlington, MA, USA

    Tasneem Zaihra Rizvi & Deanna Plewa

  6. Department of General Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Caroline Ricard

  7. Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Burlington, MA, USA

    Yee Lee Cheah & Caroline J. Simon

  8. Division of Transplant and Hepatobiliary Disease, Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

    Yee Lee Cheah & Caroline J. Simon

Authors
  1. Jessica S. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Jonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tasneem Zaihra Rizvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhibang Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Deanna Plewa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Caroline Ricard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yee Lee Cheah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Caroline J. Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Valena Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JK, NJ, and VW conceptualized and design the study. JK, NJ, DP, and CR collected data and recruited participants. JK, TZR, ZL, YLC, CS, and VW analyzed data. JK, TZR, and ZL all performed the statistical analysis. Manuscript preparation and editing was performed by JK, NJ, DP, CR and VW.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valena Wright.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) 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

Kim, J.S., Jonas, N., Rizvi, T.Z. et al. Validation of a multidisciplinary virtual reality (VR) robotic surgical curriculum. J Robotic Surg 17, 2495–2502 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01679-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01679-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation