Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic surgery simulation validity and usability comparative analysis

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The introduction of simulation into minimally invasive robotic surgery is relatively recent and has seen rapid advancement; therefore, a need exists to develop training curriculums and identify systems that will be most effective at training surgical skills. Several simulators have been introduced to support these aims—the daVinci skills simulator, Mimic dV-Trainer, Surgical Simulated Systems’ RoSS, and Simbionix Robotix Mentor. While multiple studies have been conducted to demonstrate the validity of these systems, studies comparing the perceived value of these devices as tools for education and skills are lacking.

Methods

Subjects who qualified as medical students or physicians (n = 105) were assigned a specific order to use each of the three simulators. After completing a demographic questionnaire, participants performed one exercise on the three simulators and completed a second questionnaire regarding their experience with the device. After using all systems, they completed a final questionnaire, which detailed their comparative preferences. The subject’s performance metrics were also collected from each simulator.

Results

The data confirmed the face, content, and construct validity for the dV-trainer and skills simulator. Similar validities could not be confirmed for the RoSS. >80 % of the time, participants chose the skills simulator in terms of physical comfort, ergonomics, and overall choice. However, only 55 % thought the skills simulator was worth the cost of the equipment. The dV-Trainer had the highest cost preference scores with 71 % of respondents feeling it was worth the investment.

Conclusions

Usability can affect the consistency and commitment of users of robotic surgical simulators. In a previous study, these simulators were objectively reviewed and compared in terms of their system capabilities. Collectively, this work will offer end-users and potential buyers a comparison of the perceived value and preferences of robotic simulators.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cameron JL (1997) William Stewart Halsted. Our surgical heritage. Ann Surg 225(5):445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith R, Truong M, Perez M (2014) Comparative analysis of the functionality of simulators of the da Vinci surgical robot. J Surg Endosc 29(4):972–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McDougall EM (2007) Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 21(3):244–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186(3):1019–1024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills simulator. J Urol 79(5):1068–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S (2012) 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 26(12):1629–1634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lendvay Casale P, Sweet R, Peters C (2008) Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J Robot Surg 2(3):145–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kenney P, Wszolek M, Gould J, Libertino J, Moinzadeh A (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. J Urol 73(6):1288–1292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y (2009) Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 23(3):503–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, Jehl JP, Felblinger J, Bresler L, Hubert J (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. J Surg Endosc 26(9):2587–2593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. J Urol 78(6):1326–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator—role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187(3):998–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schreuder HWR, Persson JEU, Wolswijk RGH, Ihse I, Schijven MP, Verheijen RHM (2014) Validation of a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Sci World J 2014:507076. doi:10.1155/2014/507076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. J Urol 76(2):357–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, Rehman S, Sharif M, Rao A, DuPont N, Shi Y, Wilding G, Hassett J, Guru K (2012) Development, implementation and validation of a simulation-based curriculum for robot-assisted surgery. Presented at the AUA poster session, May 19–23, 2012 Atlanta, GA

  16. Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P (2012) Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 187(2):630–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Colaco M, Balica A, Su D (2012) Initial experiences with RoSS surgical simulator in residency training: a validity and model analysis. J Robot Surg 7(1):71–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I (2012) da Vinci skills simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. J Urol 80(2):330–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Connolly M, Seligman J, Kastenmeier A, Goldblatt M, Gould JC (2014) Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3373-x

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lendvay TS, Brand TC, White L, Kowalewski T, Jonnadula S, Mercer LD, Khorsand D, Andros J, Hannaford B, Satava RM (2013) Virtual reality robotic surgery warm-up improves task performance in a dry laboratory environment: a prospective randomized controlled study. J Am Coll Surg 216:1181–1192

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Raza SJ, Foghi S, Chowriappa A et al (2014) Construct validity of the key components of the fundamental skills of robotic surgery (FSRS) curriculum: a multi-institution prospective study. J Surg Educ 71(3):3126–3324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tergas AI, Sheth SB, Green IC, Giuntoli RL 2nd, Winder AD, Fader AN (2013) A pilot study of surgical training using a virtual robotic surgery simulator. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg Soc Laparoendosc Surg 17:219–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lerner M, Ayalew M, Peine W, Sundaram C (2010) Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci® surgical system? J Endourol 24(3):467–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chowriappa A, Raza SJ, Stegemann A, Ahmed K, Shi Y, Wilding G, Kaouk J, Peabody JO, Menon M, Kesavadas T, Guru KA (2013) Development and validation of a composite grading and scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training: the robotic skills assessment scale. Podium presentation, AUA annual congress, San Diego

  25. Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C (2014) Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:48–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Nortwick S, Lendvay T, Jensen A, Wright A, Horvath K, Kim S (2010) Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery 147(5):622–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the representatives of each simulator company for their assistance in collecting images: da Vinci skills simulator photos ©2013 Intuitive Surgical, Inc., used with permission; dV-Trainer Simulator photos ©2013 Mimic Technologies, Inc., used with permission; RoSS Simulator photos ©2013 Simulated Surgical Systems, LLC., used with permission; and Robotix Mentor photos ©2014 Simbionix USA, Corp., used with permission. This work is funded by U.S. Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center. Grant #: W81XWH-11-2-0158.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Hospital Nicholson Center, 404 Celebration Place, Celebration, FL, 34747, USA

    Alyssa Tanaka & Roger Smith

  2. Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA

    Courtney Graddy

  3. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Khara Simpson & Mireille Truong

  4. University of Lorraine-Nancy, Nancy, FR, USA

    Manuela Perez

Authors
  1. Alyssa Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Courtney Graddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khara Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manuela Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mireille Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roger Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alyssa Tanaka.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Alyssa Tanaka, Courtney Graddy, Khara Simpson, Manuela Perez, Mireille Truong and Roger Smith have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tanaka, A., Graddy, C., Simpson, K. et al. Robotic surgery simulation validity and usability comparative analysis. Surg Endosc 30, 3720–3729 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4667-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4667-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation