Advertisement

Simulation in Robotic Surgery

  • Evalyn I. George
  • Roger Smith
  • Jeffrey S. Levy
  • Timothy C. BrandEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)

Abstract

Simulation is currently used in robotic-assisted surgery to advance skills development, establish credentialing guidelines, and further the field of minimally invasive surgery. As robotic-assisted surgery continues to grow, nationally installed curricula as well as rigorous and continuous training will shape the future. Robotic simulation can be as simple as a box trainer to expensive and technologically innovative virtual reality simulators.

Keywords

da Vinci Robotic Simulation Virtual reality Curriculum Laparoscopic dV-Trainer RoSS RobotiX Mentor dVSS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jeff Berkley, PhD, founder and CEO of Mimic Technologies, for his valuable contributions to the section on the history of robotic simulation.

References

  1. 1.
    Lendvay TS, et al. VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the dV-trainer robotic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;132:242–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhong W, Mancuso P. Utilization and surgical skill transferability of the simulator robot to the clinical robot for urology surgery. Urol Int. 2017;98(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar A, Smith R, Patel VR. Current status of robotic simulators in acquisition of robotic surgical skills. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(2):168–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellen G. Introducing RoSS, a “flight simulator” for robotic surgery. Buffalo: University at Buffalo; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Intuitive Surgical Inc. Skills Simulator for the da Vinci SI Surgical System; 2012; da Vinci Skills Simulator; 2016 [cited 21 Dec 2016]. Available from: http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/skills_simulator/
  6. 6.
    Xu S, et al. Face, content, construct, and concurrent validity of a novel robotic surgery patient-side simulator: the Xperience Team Trainer. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3334–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    da Vinci® Skills Simulator (DVSS). Mimic Technologies Inc. Seattle, WA. Available at: https://mimicsimulation.com/da-vinci-skills-simulator/
  8. 8.
    Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS). Simulated Surgical Systems LLC. San Jose, CA. Available at: http://www.simulatedsurgicals.com/ross.html
  9. 9.
    RobotiX Mentor 3D Systems (formerly Simbionix). Littleton, CO. Available at: https://simbionix.com/simulators/robotix-mentor/
  10. 10.
    McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):244–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stefanidis D, et al. Simulation in surgery: what’s needed next? Ann Surg. 2015;261(5):846–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hung AJ, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186(3):1019–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelly DC, et al. Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology. 2012;79(5):1068–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hertz AM, George EI, Vaccaro CM, Brand TC. “Head to head” comparison of three state of the art virtuality robotic surgery simulators. Military Surgical Symposium 2018. Presentation MSS24, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liss MA, et al. 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. 2012;26(12):1629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanaka A, et al. Robotic surgery simulation validity and usability comparative analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3720–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenney PA, et al. Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology. 2009;73(6):1288–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sethi AS, et al. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol. 2009;23(3):503–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perrenot C, et al. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer((R)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(9):2587–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Korets R, et al. Face and construct validity assessment of 2nd generation robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;185(4):e488.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee JY, et al. Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator role as an assessment tool? J Urol. 2012;187(3):998–1002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seixas-Mikelus SA, et al. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology. 2010;76(2):357–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stegemann AP, et al. Development, implementation, and validation of a simulation-based curriculum for Robot-assisted surgery. In: AUA poster session. Atlanta, GA; 2012.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whittaker G, et al. Validation of the RobotiX Mentor robotic surgery simulator. J Endourol. 2016;30(3):338–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seixas-Mikelus SA, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int. 2011;107(7):1130–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Colaco M, et al. Initial experiences with RoSS surgical simulator in residency training: a validity and model analysis. J Robot Surg. 2013;7(1):71–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Finnegan KT, et al. da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology. 2012;80(2):330–5.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raza SJ, et al. Construct validation of the key components of fundamental skills of robotic surgery (FSRS) curriculum a multi-institution prospective study. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):316–24.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hung AJ, et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol. 2012;187(2):630–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lerner MA, et al. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol. 2010;24(3):467–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Korets R, et al. Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology. 2011;78(6):1326–30.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chowriappa AJ, et al. Development and validation of a composite scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training the robotic skills assessment score. J Surg Res. 2013;185(2):561–9.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Culligan P, et al. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stegemann AP, et al. Development, implementation, and validation of a simulation- based curriculum for robot- assisted surgery. J Urol. 2013;81(4):767–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fantola G, et al. Simulator practice is not enough to become a robotic surgeon: the driving lessons model. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2014;24(4):260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomas M. The role of simulation in the development of technical competence during surgical training: a literature review. Int J Med Educ. 2013;4(1):48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huser AS, et al. Simulated life-threatening emergency during robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28(6):717–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee YL, Kilic GS, Phelps JY. Medicolegal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot-assisted surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):512–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rogers SO Jr, et al. Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery. 2006;140(1):25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kahol K, et al. Effect of fatigue on psychomotor and cognitive skills. Am J Surg. 2008;195:195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    The Chamberlain Group. Products. 2016 [cited 22 Dec 2016]. Available from: https://www.thecgroup.com/.
  44. 44.
    Martin KD, et al. Arthroscopic basic task performance in shoulder simulator model correlates with similar task performance in cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(21):e1271–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hamilton EC, et al. Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(3):406–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gilbody J, et al. The use and effectiveness of cadaveric workshops in higher surgical training: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011;95(3):347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rehman S, et al. Simulation-based robot-assisted surgical training: a health economic evaluation. Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):841–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Auer JA, et al. Refining animal models in fracture research: seeking consensus in optimising both animal welfare and scientific validity for appropriate biomedical use. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kang SG, et al. The tube 3 module designed for practicing vesicourethral anastomosis in a virtual reality robotic simulator: determination of face, content, and construct validity. Urology. 2014;84(2):345–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ruparel RK, et al. Assessment of virtual reality robotic simulation performance by urology resident trainees. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(3):302–8.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lallas CD, Davis JW, Members Of The Society Of Urologic Robotic. Robotic surgery training with commercially available simulation systems in 2011: a current review and practice pattern survey from the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Endourol. 2012;26(3):283–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Goh AC, et al. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol. 2012;187(1):247–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Martin JA, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84:273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aghazadeh MA, et al. External validation of global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc. 2015;29(11):3261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Holst D, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: an adjunct to urology resident surgical simulation training. J Endourol. 2015;29(5):604–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Holst D, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: differentiating animate surgical skill through the wisdom of crowds. J Endourol. 2015;29(10):1183–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chen C, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res. 2014;187(1):65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    White LW, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skill: a valid method for discriminating basic robotic surgery skills. J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    DiMaio S, Hasser C. The da Vinci research interface. Published in the MIDAS Journal – Systems and Architectures for Computer Assisted Interventions (MICCAI 2008 Workshop). Accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/10380/1464
  61. 61.
    Kumar R, et al. Assessing system operation skills in robotic surgery trainees. Int J Med Robot. 2012;8(1):118–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hung AJ, et al. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int. 2013;112(6):864–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fisher RA, et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg. 2015;13:115–23.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gallagher A, O’Sullivan GC. Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation: Principles and Practices. London: Springer Verlag; 2012.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Smith R, Patel V, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(3):379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Zevin B, et al. A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(4):580–586.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Harders M. Surgical scene generation for virtual reality-based training in medicine. London: Springer; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gallagher AG, et al. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):364–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evalyn I. George
    • 1
  • Roger Smith
    • 2
  • Jeffrey S. Levy
    • 3
  • Timothy C. Brand
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMadigan Army Medical Center/Henry M. Jackson FoundationTacomaUSA
  2. 2.Florida Hospital, Nicholson CenterCelebrationUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Surgical ExcellenceNewtown SquareUSA
  4. 4.Department of UrologyMadigan Army Medical CenterTacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations