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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
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 11/2015

01-11-2015 | Sports Traumatology

Validation of the ArthroS virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic skills

Authors: J. J. Stunt, G. M. M. J. Kerkhoffs, C. N. van Dijk, G. J. M. Tuijthof

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 11/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Virtual reality simulator training has become important for acquiring arthroscopic skills. A new simulator for knee arthroscopy ArthroS™ has been developed. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate face and construct validity, executed according to a protocol used previously to validate arthroscopic simulators.

Methods

Twenty-seven participants were divided into three groups having different levels of arthroscopic experience. Participants answered questions regarding general information and the outer appearance of the simulator for face validity. Construct validity was assessed with one standardized navigation task. Face validity, educational value and user friendliness were further determined by giving participants three exercises and by asking them to fill out the questionnaire.

Results

Construct validity was demonstrated between experts and beginners. Median task times were not significantly different for all repetitions between novices and intermediates, and between intermediates and experts. Median face validity was 8.3 for the outer appearance, 6.5 for the intra-articular joint and 4.7 for surgical instruments. Educational value and user friendliness were perceived as nonsatisfactory, especially because of the lack of tactile feedback.

Conclusion

The ArthroS™ demonstrated construct validity between novices and experts, but did not demonstrate full face validity. Future improvements should be mainly focused on the development of tactile feedback. It is necessary that a newly presented simulator is validated to prove it actually contributes to proficiency of skills.
Literature
1.
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. Am J Robot Surg 2:151–158CrossRef
2.
Botden SMBI, Torab F, Buzink SN, Jakimowicz JJ (2008) The importance of haptic feedback in laparoscopic suturing training and the additive value of virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc 22:1214–1222CrossRefPubMed
3.
Brehmer M, Swartz R (2005) Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur Urol 48:458–463CrossRefPubMed
4.
Brehmer M, Tolley DA (2002) European urology validation of a bench model for endoscopic surgery in the upper urinary tract. Eur Urol 42:175–180CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gomoll AH, O’Toole RV, Czarnecki J, Warner JJP (2007) Surgical experience correlates with performance on a virtual reality simulator for shoulder arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 35:883–888CrossRefPubMed
6.
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
7.
Haluck RS, Satava M, Fried G, Lake C, Ritter EM, Sachdeva K, Seymour NE, Terry ML, Wilks D (2007) Establishing a simulation center for surgical skills: what to do and how to do it. Surg Endosc 21:1223–1232CrossRefPubMed
8.
Howells HR, Gill HS, Carr J, Price J, Rees JL (2008) Transferring simulated arthroscopic skills to the operating theatre: a randomised blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:494–499CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jacomides L, Ogan K, Cadeddu J, Pearle MS (2004) Use of a virtual reality simulator for ureteroscopy training. J Urol 171:320–323CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kim HK, Rattner DW, Srinivasan M (2004) Virtual-reality-based laparoscopic surgical training: the role of simulation fidelity in haptic feedback. CAS 9:227–234
11.
Knoll T, Trojan L, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS (2005) Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int 95:1276–1279CrossRefPubMed
12.
Korndorffer JR, Dunne B, Sierra R, Stefanidis D, Touchard CL, Scott DJ (2005) Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 201:23–29CrossRefPubMed
13.
Macmillan AIM, Cuschieri A (1999) Assessment of innate ability and skills for endoscopic manipulations by the advanced dundee endoscopic psychomotor tester: predictive and concurrent validity. Am J Surg 177:274–277CrossRefPubMed
14.
Matsumoto ED, Hamstra SJ, Radomski SB, Cusimano MD (2001) A novel approach to endourological training: training at the surgical skills center. J Urol 166:1261–1266CrossRefPubMed
15.
Matsumoto ED, Pace KT, D’A Honey RJ (2006) Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int J Urol 13:896–901CrossRefPubMed
16.
Maura A, Galatà G, Rulli F (2008) Establishing a simulation center for surgical skills. Surg Endosc 22:564CrossRefPubMed
17.
McClusky DA, Smith CD (2008) Design and development of a surgical skills simulation curriculum. World J Surg 32:171–181CrossRefPubMed
18.
Modi CS, Morris G, Mukherjee R (2010) Computer-simulation training for knee and shoulder arthroscopic surgery. Arthroscopy 26:832–840CrossRefPubMed
19.
Moody L, Waterworth A, McCarthy AD, Harley PJ, Smallwood RH (2007) The feasibility of a mixed reality surgical training environment. Virtual Real 12:77–86CrossRef
20.
Michelson JD (2006) Simulation in orthopaedic education: an overview of theory and practice. J Bone Joint Surg 88:1405–1411CrossRefPubMed
21.
Munz Y, Almoudaris AM, Moorthy K, Dosis A, Liddle AD, Darzi AW (2007) Curriculum-based solo virtual reality training for laparoscopic intracorporeal knot tying: objective assessment of the transfer of skill from virtual reality to reality. Am J Surg 193:774–783CrossRefPubMed
22.
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
23.
Ogan K, Jacomides L, Shulman MJ, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu J, Pearle MS (2004) Virtual ureteroscopy predicts ureteroscopic proficiency of medical students on a cadaver. J Urol 172:667–671CrossRefPubMed
24.
Pedowitz R, Esch J, Snyder S (2002) Evaluation of a virtual reality simulator for arthroscopy skills development. Arthroscopy 18:1–6CrossRef
25.
Reznek M, Pp Harter, Krummel T (2002) Virtual reality and simulation: training the future emergency physician. Acad Emerg Med 9:78–87CrossRefPubMed
26.
Satava RM (1997) Virtual reality and telepresence for military medicine. Ann Acad Med Singap 26:118–120PubMed
27.
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
28.
Ström P, Hedman L, Särnå L, Kjellin A, Wredmark T, Felländer-Tsai L (2006) Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents. Surg Endosc 20:1383–1388CrossRefPubMed
29.
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
30.
Tuijthof GJM, Visser P, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, Kerkhoffs GMMJ (2011) Does perception of usefulness of arthroscopic simulators differ with levels of experience? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1701–1708PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
31.
Watterson JD, Beiko DT, Kuan JK, Denstedt JD (2002) Randomized prospective blinded study validating acquisition of ureteroscopy skills using computer based virtual reality endourological simulator. J Urol 168:1928–1932CrossRefPubMed
32.
White MA, Dehaan AP, Stephens DD, Maes A, Maatman TJ (2010) Validation of a high fidelity adult ureteroscopy and renoscopy simulator. J Urol 183:673–677CrossRefPubMed
33.
Wilhelm DM, Ogan K, Roehrborn CG, Cadeddu J, Pearle MS (2002) Assessment of basic endoscopic performance using a virtual reality simulator. J Am Coll Surg 195:675–681CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validation of the ArthroS virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic skills
Authors
J. J. Stunt
G. M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
C. N. van Dijk
G. J. M. Tuijthof
Publication date
01-11-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3101-7

Other articles of this Issue 11/2015

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 11/2015 Go to the issue

Knee

Posterior tibial displacement in the PCL-deficient knee is reduced compared to the normal knee during gait

Knee

Assessing joint line positions by means of the contralateral knee: a new approach for planning knee revision surgery?

Editorial

Flat ACL anatomy: fact no fiction

Knee

A cadaveric study of the anterolateral ligament: re-introducing the lateral capsular ligament

Ankle

Ankle arthroscopy to manage sequelae after ankle fractures

Knee

Gait changes of the ACL-deficient knee 3D kinematic assessment