Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4/2015

01-04-2015 | Knee

Evaluation of a virtual-reality-based simulator using passive haptic feedback for knee arthroscopy

Authors: Sandro F. Fucentese, Stefan Rahm, Karl Wieser, Jonas Spillmann, Matthias Harders, Peter P. Koch

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this work is to determine face validity and construct validity of a new virtual-reality-based simulator for diagnostic and therapeutic knee arthroscopy.

Methods

The study tests a novel arthroscopic simulator based on passive haptics. Sixty-eight participants were grouped into novices, intermediates, and experts. All participants completed two exercises. In order to establish face validity, all participants filled out a questionnaire concerning different aspects of simulator realism, training capacity, and different statements using a seven-point Likert scale (range 1–7). Construct validity was tested by comparing various simulator metric values between novices and experts.

Results

Face validity could be established: overall realism was rated with a mean value of 5.5 points. Global training capacity scored a mean value of 5.9. Participants considered the simulator as useful for procedural training of diagnostic and therapeutic arthroscopy. In the foreign body removal exercise, experts were overall significantly faster in the whole procedure (6 min 24 s vs. 8 min 24 s, p < 0.001), took less time to complete the diagnostic tour (2 min 49 s vs. 3 min 32 s, p = 0.027), and had a shorter camera path length (186 vs. 246 cm, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

The simulator achieved high scores in terms of realism. It was regarded as a useful training tool, which is also capable of differentiating between varying levels of arthroscopic experience. Nevertheless, further improvements of the simulator especially in the field of therapeutic arthroscopy are desirable. In general, the findings support that virtual-reality-based simulation using passive haptics has the potential to complement conventional training of knee arthroscopy skills.

Level of evidence

II.
Literature
1.
Aggarwal R, Tully A, Grantcharov T, Larsen CR, Miskry T, Farthing A, Darzi A (2006) Virtual reality simulation training can improve technical skills during laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 113:1382–1387CrossRef
2.
Bajka M, Tuchschmid S, Fink D, Székely G, Harders M (2009) Establishing construct validity of a virtual-reality training simulator for hysteroscopy via a multimetric scoring system. Surg Endosc 24:79–88CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bajka M, Tuchschmid S, Streich M, Fink D, Székely G, Harders M (2008) Evaluation of a new virtual-reality training simulator for hysteroscopy. Surg Endosc 23:2026–2033CrossRefPubMed
4.
Basdogan C, Sedef M, Harders M, Wesarg S (2007) VR-based simulators for training in minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 27:54–66CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bayona S, Fernández-Arroyo JM, Martín I, Bayona P (2008) Assessment study of insight ARTHRO VR® arthroscopy virtual training simulator: face, content, and construct validities. J Robot Surg 2:151–158CrossRef
6.
Cannon WD, Eckhoff DG, Garrett WE Jr, Hunter RE, Sweeney HJ (2006) Report of a group developing a virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic surgery of the knee joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:21–29CrossRefPubMed
7.
Carter FJ, Schijven MP, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Francis NK, Hanna GB, Jakimowicz JJ (2006) Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Simul Healthc 1:171–179CrossRefPubMed
8.
Farnworth LR, Lemay DE, Wooldridge T, Mabrey JD, Blaschak MJ, DeCoster TA, Wascher DC, Schenck RC (2001) A comparison of operative times in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between orthopaedic faculty and residents: the financial impact of orthopaedic surgical training in the operating room. Iowa Orthop J 21:31–35PubMedCentralPubMed
9.
Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM (2003) Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc 17:1525–1529CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gomoll AH, Pappas G, Forsythe B, Warner JJP (2008) Individual skill progression on a virtual reality simulator for shoulder arthroscopy: a 3-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 36:1139–1142CrossRefPubMed
11.
Haque S, Srinivasan S (2006) A meta-analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulators. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 10:51–58CrossRefPubMed
12.
Howells NR, Gill HS, Carr AJ, Price AJ, Rees JL (2008) Transferring simulated arthroscopic skills to the operating theatre: a randomised blinded study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90:494–499CrossRef
13.
Khalifa YM, Bogorad D, Gibson V, Peifer J, Nussbaum J (2006) Virtual reality in ophthalmology training. Surv Ophthalmol 51:259–273CrossRefPubMed
14.
Koch F, Koss MJ, Singh P, Naser H (2009) Virtual reality in ophthalmology. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 226:672–676CrossRefPubMed
15.
Larsen C, Grantcharov T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, Soerensen J, Ottesen B (2008) Objective assessment of surgical competence in gynaecological laparoscopy: development and validation of a procedure-specific rating scale. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 115:908–916CrossRef
16.
Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, Schroeder TV, Ottesen BS (2009) Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 338:b1802CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
17.
18.
McCarthy AD, Hollands RJ (1998) A commercially viable virtual reality knee arthroscopy training system. Stud Health Technol Inform 50:302–308PubMed
19.
Meyer RD, Tamarapalli JR, Lemons JE (1993) Arthroscopy training using a “black box” technique. Arthroscopy 9(3):338–340
20.
Modi CS, Morris G, Mukherjee R (2010) Computer-simulation training for knee and shoulder arthroscopic surgery. Arthroscopy 26(6):832–840
21.
Moody L, Waterworth A, Arthur JG, McCarthy AD (2009) Beyond the visuals: tactile augmentation and sensory enhancement in an arthroscopy simulator. Virtual Real 13(1):59–68CrossRef
22.
Moody L, Waterworth A, McCarthy AD, Harley PJ (2008) The feasibility of a mixed reality surgical training environment. Virtual Real 12(2):77–86CrossRef
23.
24.
Müller W, Bockholt U, Lahmer A, Voss G, Börner M (2000) VRATS—virtual reality arthroscopy training simulator. Radiologe 40:290–294CrossRefPubMed
25.
O’Neill PJ, Cosgarea AJ, Freedman JA, Queale WS, McFarland EG (2002) Arthroscopic proficiency: a survey of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors and orthopaedic surgery department chairs. Arthroscopy 18:795–800CrossRefPubMed
26.
Panel P, Bajka M, Tohic A, Ghoneimi AE, Chis C, Cotin S (2012) Hysteroscopic placement of tubal sterilization implants: virtual reality simulator training. Surg Endosc 26(7):1986–1996
27.
Pedowitz RA, Esch J, Snyder S (2002) Evaluation of a virtual reality simulator for arthroscopy skills development. J Arthrosc Rel Surg 18:e29CrossRef
28.
Schijven M, Jakimowicz J (2003) Construct validity: experts and novices performing on the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator. Surg Endosc 17:803–810CrossRefPubMed
29.
Schijven MP, Jakimowicz J (2004) The learning curve on the Xitact LS 500 laparoscopy simulator: profiles of performance. Surg Endosc 18:121–127CrossRefPubMed
30.
Spillmann J, Tuchschmid S, Harders M (2013) Adaptive space warping to enhance passive haptics in an arthroscopy surgical simulator. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19:626–633CrossRefPubMed
31.
Srivastava S, Youngblood PL, Rawn C, Hariri S, Heinrichs WL, Ladd AL (2004) Initial evaluation of a shoulder arthroscopy simulator: establishing construct validity. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:196–205CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Tuijthof GJM, van Sterkenburg MN, Sierevelt IN, van Oldenrijk J, Van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GMMJ (2010) First validation of the PASSPORT training environment for arthroscopic skills. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:218–224CrossRefPubMed
34.
Tuijthof GJM, Visser P, Sierevelt IN, Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GMMJ (2011) Does perception of usefulness of arthroscopic simulators differ with levels of experience? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1701–1708CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
35.
Woodrum DT, Andreatta PB, Yellamanchilli RK, Feryus L, Gauger PG, Minter RM (2006) Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator. Am J Surg 191:28–32CrossRefPubMed
36.
Ziegler R, Fischer G, Müller W, Göbel M (1995) Virtual reality arthroscopy training simulator. Comput Biol Med 25:193–203CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of a virtual-reality-based simulator using passive haptic feedback for knee arthroscopy
Authors
Sandro F. Fucentese
Stefan Rahm
Karl Wieser
Jonas Spillmann
Matthias Harders
Peter P. Koch
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2888-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4/2015 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Palpation tests versus impingement tests in Neer stage I and II subacromial impingement syndrome

Knee

The impact of sensory deficits after harvesting hamstrings autograft for ACL reconstruction

Knee

Size correlation between the tibial anterior cruciate ligament footprint and the tibia plateau

Knee

Morphology of the femoral insertion site of the medial patellofemoral ligament

Knee

Developmental anomaly of ossification type patella partita

Knee

Differences in ACL biomechanical risk factors between field hockey and lacrosse female athletes