Historical Perspective

  • David Marko HananelEmail author
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)


The modern concept of surgical simulation came into light only in the late 1980s. In spite of glowing predictions of growth and acceptance from the very beginning, it has been a long and tedious journey. We are at a crossroads where vision, interest, and funding are coming together to move the field forward. It is critical to review and understand the travails of the last 30 plus years to learn from the experience of those that led the charge and build upon it to accelerate growth in this field. The field started with support from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with funding and the question: If we can simulate flying a plane, why can we not simulate and better prepare for surgery? Almost 20 years later, the biggest push and support for advancing the field are again from the DOD through the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC). The DoD is fostering research by attaching funding opportunities to core challenges and key questions that need to be addressed to increase fidelity, enable interoperability, and remove barriers to implementation. Now, more than ever, the collaboration between academia, professional societies, and government is laying the groundwork for industry to bring training products in line with the training requirements.


Simulation Virtual reality Human patient simulation Surgical education Surgical simulation DARPA TATRC History Objective assessment 


  1. 1.
    Owen H. Early use of simulation in medical education. Simul Healthc. 2012;7(2):102–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edmond CV Jr, Heskamp D, Sluis D, Stredney D, Sessanna D, Wiet G, et al. ENT endoscopic surgical training simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1997;39:518–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fried MP, Satava R, Weghorst S, Gallagher AG, Sasaki C, Ross D, et al. Identifying and reducing errors with surgical simulation. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(Suppl 1):i19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fried MP, Sadoughi B, Weghorst SJ, Zeltsan M, Cuellar H, Uribe JI, et al. Construct validity of the endoscopic sinus surgery simulator – II. Assessment of discriminant validity and expert benchmarking. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(4):350–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Toole R, Playter R, Krummel T, Blank W, Cornelius N, Roberts W, et al. Assessing skill and learning in surgeons and medical students using a force feedback surgical simulator. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv - Miccai'98. 1998;1496:899–909.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O'Toole RV, Playter RR, Krummel TM, Blank WC, Cornelius NH, Roberts WR, et al. Measuring and developing suturing technique with a virtual reality surgical simulator. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189(1):114–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith S, Wan A, Taffinder N, Read S, Emery R, Darzi A. Early experience and validation work with Procedicus VA--the Prosolvia virtual reality shoulder arthroscopy trainer. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1999;62:337–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedowitz RA, Esch J, Snyder S. Evaluation of a virtual reality simulator for arthroscopy skills development. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(6):E29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartmannsgruber M, Good M, Carovano R, Lampotang S, Gravenstein JS. Anesthesia simulators and training devices. Anaesthesist. 1993;42(7):462–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Meurs WL, Beneken JEW, Good ML, Lampotang S, Carovano RG Jr, Gravenstein JS. Physiologic model for an anesthesia simulator. Anesthesiology (Hagerstown). 1993;79(3A):A1114–A.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaba DM, Deanda A. A comprehensive anesthesia simulation environment - recreating the operating-room for research and training. Anesthesiology. 1988;69(3):387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Good ML, Gravenstein JS. Anesthesia simulators and training devices. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1989;27(3):161–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hall JE. The pioneering use of systems analysis to study cardiac output regulation. Am J Phys Regul Integr Comp Phys. 2004;287(5):R1009–R11.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaba DM, Howard SK, Flanagan B, Smith BE, Fish KJ, Botney R. Assessment of clinical performance during simulated crises using both technical and behavioral ratings. Anesthesiology. 1998;89(1):8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zajtchuk R, Satava RM. Medical applications of virtual reality. Commun ACM. 1997;40(9):63–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Satava RM. Historical review of surgical simulation - a personal perspective. World J Surg. 2008;32(2):141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Satava RM, Cuschieri A, Hamdorf J. Metrics for objective assessment. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(2):220–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heinrichs WL, Lukoff B, Youngblood P, Dev P, Shavelson R, Hasson HM, et al. Criterion-based training with surgical simulators: proficiency of experienced surgeons. Jsls. 2007;11(3):273–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pellegrini CA, Warshaw AL, Debas HT. Residency training in surgery in the 21st century: a new paradigm. Surgery. 2004;136(5):953–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pellegrini CA. Surgical education in the United States - navigating the white waters. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):335–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Debas HT. Surgery: a noble profession in a changing world. Ann Surg. 2002;236(3):263–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Debas HT, Bass BL, Brennan MF, Flynn TC, Folse JR, Freischlag JA, et al. American surgical association blue ribbon committee report on surgical education: 2004 residency training in surgery in the 21st century: a new paradigm. Ann Surg. 2005;241(1):1–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taffinder NJ, Russell RCG, McManus IC, Jansen J, Darzi A. An objective assessment of surgeons’ psychomotor skills: validation of the MIST-VR laparoscopic simulator. Br J Surg. 1998;85:75.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taffinder N, Sutton C, Fishwick RJ, McManus IC, Darzi A. Validation of virtual reality to teach and assess psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery: results from randomised controlled studies using the MIST VR laparoscopic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;50:124–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg. 2002;236(4):458–63; discussion 563–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nicholson WJ, Cates CU, Patel AD, Niazi K, Palmer S, Helmy T, et al. Face and content validation of virtual reality simulation for carotid angiography: results from the first 100 physicians attending the Emory NeuroAnatomy Carotid Training (ENACT) program. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2006;1(3):147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berry M, Lystig T, Reznick R, Lonn L. Assessment of a virtual interventional simulator trainer. J Endovasc Ther. 2006;13(2):237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sweet RM. Review of trainers for transurethral resection of the prostate skills. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):280–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aydin A, Muir GH, Graziano ME, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Validation of the GreenLight simulator and development of a training curriculum for photoselective vaporisation of the prostate. BJU Int. 2015;115(6):994–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hananel D, Sweet R. Simulator development – from idea to prototype to product. In: R. Aggarwal JKJC-B, editor. ACS principles and practice for simulation and surgical education research. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sweet RM, Hananel D, Lawrenz F. A unified approach to validation, reliability, and education study design for surgical technical skills training. Arch Surg. 2010;145(2):197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Center for Research in Education and Simulation Technologies (CREST)University of Washington, School of MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations