Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 11/2019

01-11-2019 | Original Scientific Report with Video

Comparison of Training Efficacy Between Custom-Made Skills Simulator (CMSS) and da Vinci Skills Simulators: A Randomized Control Study

Authors: Cho Rok Lee, Seoung Yoon Rho, Sang Hyup Han, Young Moon, Sun Young Hwang, Young Joo Kim, Chang Moo Kang

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 11/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To compare the effectiveness of a custom-made skills simulator (CMSS) with the commercially available da Vinci® skills simulator (DVSS) that help improving surgical skills for effective and safe robotic surgical interventions.

Methods

A randomized control study was conducted to determine the performance of participants after undergoing robotic surgical training. Total 64 students who had no previous experience with robotic surgery enrolled this study. After 5 min—introduction of robotic surgical system, the participants got random-assignment into two groups to perform either CMSS-or DVSS-exercises. After 15 min-practicing the corresponding simulator, task-execution performance and individual questionnaires were compared between participants trained with the CMSS and those trained with the DVSS.

Results

Regardless of simulator the participants used, the system understanding and manipulation ability of the participants was found to be higher than after completing the simulation-based robotic surgical training (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in terms of the required time to complete the tasks, and improvement of understanding the concept of robotic surgery, or surgical skill capacity between two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The training effectiveness of CMSS was not significantly different to DVSS. It can be synergetic tool to DVSS for novice trainees of robotic surgery to get accustomed to the robotic surgical system and to improve their basic robotic surgical skills.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kang CM, Lee SH, Lee WJ (2014) Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 20(9):2343–2351CrossRef Kang CM, Lee SH, Lee WJ (2014) Minimally invasive radical pancreatectomy for left-sided pancreatic cancer: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 20(9):2343–2351CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Watkins AA, Kent TS, Gooding WE et al (2017) Multicenter outcomes of robotic reconstruction during the early learning curve for minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 20:155–165CrossRef Watkins AA, Kent TS, Gooding WE et al (2017) Multicenter outcomes of robotic reconstruction during the early learning curve for minimally-invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 20:155–165CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Mazzon G, Sridhar A, Busuttil G et al (2017) Learning curves for robotic surgery: a review of the recent literature. Curr Urol Rep 18(11):89CrossRef Mazzon G, Sridhar A, Busuttil G et al (2017) Learning curves for robotic surgery: a review of the recent literature. Curr Urol Rep 18(11):89CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Dunn DH, Johnson EM, Anderson CA et al (2017) Operative and survival outcomes in a series of 100 consecutive cases of robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomies. Dis Esophagus 30(10):1–7CrossRef Dunn DH, Johnson EM, Anderson CA et al (2017) Operative and survival outcomes in a series of 100 consecutive cases of robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomies. Dis Esophagus 30(10):1–7CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Son T, Hyung WJ (2015) Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 112(3):271–278CrossRef Son T, Hyung WJ (2015) Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol 112(3):271–278CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM et al (2017) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc 31(6):2380–2386CrossRef Liu R, Zhang T, Zhao ZM et al (2017) The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for periampullary neoplasms: a comparative study of a single center. Surg Endosc 31(6):2380–2386CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L et al (2017) Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: the European experience. Eur Urol 73:273–281CrossRef Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L et al (2017) Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: the European experience. Eur Urol 73:273–281CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Abdel Raheem A, Alatawi A, Kim DK et al (2016) Outcomes of high-complexity renal tumours with a preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) score of ≥10 after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with a median 46.5-month follow-up: a tertiary centre experience. BJU Int 118(5):770–778CrossRef Abdel Raheem A, Alatawi A, Kim DK et al (2016) Outcomes of high-complexity renal tumours with a preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) score of ≥10 after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with a median 46.5-month follow-up: a tertiary centre experience. BJU Int 118(5):770–778CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Zubair MH, Smith JM (2017) Updates in minimally invasive cardiac surgery for general surgeons. Surg Clin North Am 97(4):889–898CrossRef Zubair MH, Smith JM (2017) Updates in minimally invasive cardiac surgery for general surgeons. Surg Clin North Am 97(4):889–898CrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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):1065–1080CrossRef 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):1065–1080CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Phe V, Cattarino S, Parra J et al (2017) Outcomes of a virtual-reality simulator-training programme on basic surgical skills in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Int J Med Robot 13(2):e1740CrossRef Phe V, Cattarino S, Parra J et al (2017) Outcomes of a virtual-reality simulator-training programme on basic surgical skills in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Int J Med Robot 13(2):e1740CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int 111(2):194–205CrossRef Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int 111(2):194–205CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N et al (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer((R)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(9):2587–2593CrossRef Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N et al (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer((R)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26(9):2587–2593CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P, Truong M, Perez M, Smith R (2017) A comparative analysis and guide to virtual reality robotic surgical simulators. Int J Med Robot. 14:e1874CrossRef Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P, Truong M, Perez M, Smith R (2017) A comparative analysis and guide to virtual reality robotic surgical simulators. Int J Med Robot. 14:e1874CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Chang KD, Abdel Raheem A, Choi YD, Chung BH, Rha KH (2018) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial. BJU Int 122:441–448CrossRef Chang KD, Abdel Raheem A, Choi YD, Chung BH, Rha KH (2018) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial. BJU Int 122:441–448CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kang CM, Chong JU, Lim JH et al (2017) Robotic cholecystectomy using the newly developed Korean robotic surgical system, Revo-i: a preclinical experiment in a porcine model. Yonsei Med J 58(5):1075–1077CrossRef Kang CM, Chong JU, Lim JH et al (2017) Robotic cholecystectomy using the newly developed Korean robotic surgical system, Revo-i: a preclinical experiment in a porcine model. Yonsei Med J 58(5):1075–1077CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Zhao W (2014) A better alternative to stratified permuted block design for subject randomization in clinical trials. Stat Med 33(30):5239–5248CrossRef Zhao W (2014) A better alternative to stratified permuted block design for subject randomization in clinical trials. Stat Med 33(30):5239–5248CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Doyle JD, Webber EM, Sidhu RS (2007) A universal global rating scale for the evaluation of technical skills in the operating room. Am J Surg 193(5):551–555 (discussion 555) CrossRef Doyle JD, Webber EM, Sidhu RS (2007) A universal global rating scale for the evaluation of technical skills in the operating room. Am J Surg 193(5):551–555 (discussion 555) CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lee JH, Tanaka E, Woo Y et al (2017) Advanced real-time multi-display educational system (ARMES): an innovative real-time audiovisual mentoring tool for complex robotic surgery. J Surg Oncol 116:894–897CrossRef Lee JH, Tanaka E, Woo Y et al (2017) Advanced real-time multi-display educational system (ARMES): an innovative real-time audiovisual mentoring tool for complex robotic surgery. J Surg Oncol 116:894–897CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Satava RM (1993) Virtual reality surgical simulator. The first steps. Surg Endosc 7(3):203–205CrossRef Satava RM (1993) Virtual reality surgical simulator. The first steps. Surg Endosc 7(3):203–205CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Raison N, Ahmed K, Fossati N et al (2017) Competency based training in robotic surgery: benchmark scores for virtual reality robotic simulation. BJU International 119(5):804–811CrossRef Raison N, Ahmed K, Fossati N et al (2017) Competency based training in robotic surgery: benchmark scores for virtual reality robotic simulation. BJU International 119(5):804–811CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Dubin AK, Smith R, Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P (2017) A comparison of robotic simulation performance on basic virtual reality skills: simulator subjective versus objective assessment tools. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(7):1184–1189CrossRef Dubin AK, Smith R, Julian D, Tanaka A, Mattingly P (2017) A comparison of robotic simulation performance on basic virtual reality skills: simulator subjective versus objective assessment tools. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(7):1184–1189CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Vogell A, Gujral H, Wright KN, Wright VW, Ruthazer R (2015) Impact of a robotic simulation program on resident surgical performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(6):874–875CrossRef Vogell A, Gujral H, Wright KN, Wright VW, Ruthazer R (2015) Impact of a robotic simulation program on resident surgical performance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(6):874–875CrossRef
24.
go back to reference van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP (2009) The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc 23(6):1180–1190CrossRef van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP (2009) The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc 23(6):1180–1190CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Smith R, Patel V, Satava R (2014) 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 10(3):379–384CrossRef Smith R, Patel V, Satava R (2014) 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 10(3):379–384CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of Training Efficacy Between Custom-Made Skills Simulator (CMSS) and da Vinci Skills Simulators: A Randomized Control Study
Authors
Cho Rok Lee
Seoung Yoon Rho
Sang Hyup Han
Young Moon
Sun Young Hwang
Young Joo Kim
Chang Moo Kang
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 11/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05108-6

Other articles of this Issue 11/2019

World Journal of Surgery 11/2019 Go to the issue