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 2/2017

01-02-2017 | Sports Traumatology

Validation of the updated ArthroS simulator: face and construct validity of a passive haptic virtual reality simulator with novel performance metrics

Authors: Patrick Garfjeld Roberts, Paul Guyver, Mathew Baldwin, Kash Akhtar, Abtin Alvand, Andrew J. Price, Jonathan L. Rees

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the construct and face validity of ArthroS, a passive haptic VR simulator. A secondary aim was to evaluate the novel performance metrics produced by this simulator.

Methods

Two groups of 30 participants, each divided into novice, intermediate or expert based on arthroscopic experience, completed three separate tasks on either the knee or shoulder module of the simulator. Performance was recorded using 12 automatically generated performance metrics and video footage of the arthroscopic procedures. The videos were blindly assessed using a validated global rating scale (GRS). Participants completed a survey about the simulator’s realism and training utility.

Results

This new simulator demonstrated construct validity of its tasks when evaluated against a GRS (p ≤ 0.003 in all cases). Regarding it’s automatically generated performance metrics, established outputs such as time taken (p ≤ 0.001) and instrument path length (p ≤ 0.007) also demonstrated good construct validity. However, two-thirds of the proposed ‘novel metrics’ the simulator reports could not distinguish participants based on arthroscopic experience. Face validity assessment rated the simulator as a realistic and useful tool for trainees, but the passive haptic feedback (a key feature of this simulator) is rated as less realistic.

Conclusion

The ArthroS simulator has good task construct validity based on established objective outputs, but some of the novel performance metrics could not distinguish between surgical experience. The passive haptic feedback of the simulator also needs improvement. If simulators could offer automated and validated performance feedback, this would facilitate improvements in the delivery of training by allowing trainees to practise and self-assess.
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. Br J Obstet Gynaec 113:1382–1387CrossRef
2.
Akhtar K, Standfield NJ, Gupte CM, Tuijthof GJM (2015) Chapter 7: Virtual reality simulators. In: Karahan M, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Randelli P, Tuijthof GJM (eds) Effective training in arthroscopic skills, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 71–80
3.
Alvand A, Auplish S, Khan T, Gill HS, Rees JL (2011) Identifying orthopaedic surgeons of the future: the inability of some medical students to achieve competence in basic arthroscopic tasks despite training: a randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:1586–1591CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Angelo RL, Ryu RKN, Pedowitz RA, Gallagher AG (2015) Metric development for an arthroscopic Bankart procedure: assessment of face and content validity. Arthroscopy 31:1430–1440CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Brown D (2013) The role of simulation in the learning of surgical skills. Ann R Coll Surg Eng (Suppl) 95:292–295CrossRef
8.
Cannon WD, Nicandri GT, Reinig K, Mevis H, Wittstein J (2014) Evaluation of skill level between trainees and community orthopaedic surgeons using a virtual reality arthroscopic knee simulator. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:e57. doi:10.​2106/​JBJS.​M.​00779 CrossRefPubMed
9.
Coughlin RP, Pauyo T, Sutton JC, Coughlin LP, Bergeron SG (2015) A validated orthopaedic surgical simulation model for training and evaluation of basic arthroscopic skills. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:1465–1471CrossRefPubMed
10.
Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N (1999) Assessing operative skill: needs to become more objective. Br Med J 318:887–888CrossRef
11.
Datta V, Mackay S, Mandalia M, Darzi A (2001) The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory-based model. J Am Coll Surg 193:479–485CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ferguson JY, Alvand A, Price AJ, Rees JL (2015) Chapter 8: Theory on simulator validation. In: Karahan M, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Randelli P, Tuijthof GJM (eds) Effective training in arthroscopic skills, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–94
13.
Fucentese SF, Rahm S, Wieser K, Spillmann J, Harders M, Koch PP (2015) Evaluation of a virtual-reality-based simulator using passive haptic feedback for knee arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1077–1085CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gélinas-Phaneuf N, Choudhury N, Al-Habib AR, Cabral A, Nadeau E, Mora V, Pazos V, Debergue P, DiRaddo R, Del Maestro RF (2014) Assessing performance in brain tumor resection using a novel virtual reality simulator. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9:1–9. doi:10.​1007/​s11548-013-0905-8 CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Howells NR, Brinsden MD, Gill RS, Carr AJ, Rees JL (2008) Motion analysis: a validated method for showing skill levels in arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 24:335–342CrossRefPubMed
17.
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 Joint Surg Br 90:494–499CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hunter S, McLaren P (1993) Specialist medical training and the Calman report. Br Med J 306:1281–1282CrossRef
19.
Jacobsen ME, Andersen MJ, Hansen CO, Konge L (2015) Testing basic competency in knee arthroscopy using a virtual reality simulator: exploring validity and reliability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:775–781CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Koehler RJ, Amsdell S, Arendt EA, Bisson LJ, Bramen JP, Butler A, Cosgarea AJ, Harner CD, Garrett WE, Olson T, Warme WJ, Nicandri GT (2013) The arthroscopic surgical skill evaluation tool (ASSET). Am J Sports Med 41:1229–1237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Lopez G, Wright R, Martin D, Jung J, Bracey D, Gupta R (2015) A cost-effective junior resident training and assessment simulator for orthopaedic surgical skills via fundamentals of orthopaedic surgery: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:659–666CrossRefPubMed
23.
Marsh H (2015) Better not look down…. Ann R Coll Surg Eng (Suppl) 97:339–342CrossRef
24.
Milburn JA, Khera G, Hornby ST, Malone PSC, Fitzgerald JEF (2012) Introduction, availability and role of simulation in surgical education and training: review of current evidence and recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int J Surg 10:393–398CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Nousiainen MT, McQueen SA, Ferguson P, Alman B, Kraemer W, Safir O, Reznick R, Sonnadara R (2015) Simulation for teaching orthopaedic residents in a competency-based curriculum: do the benefits justify the increased costs? Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.​1007/​s11999-015-4512-6
27.
Palter VN, Grantcharov TP (2014) Individualized deliberate practice on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance of surgical novices in the operating room. Ann Surg 259:443–448CrossRefPubMed
28.
Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL, Roberts KE, Dudrick SJ, Duffy AJ (2009) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res 156:312–316CrossRefPubMed
29.
Pedowitz RA, Nicandri GT, Angelo RL, Ryu RKN, Gallagher AG (2015) Objective assessment of knot-tying proficiency with the fundamentals of arthroscopic surgery training program workstation and knot tester. Arthroscopy 31(10):1872–1879CrossRefPubMed
30.
Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 13:257–266CrossRef
31.
Shah J, Darzi A (2002) Virtual reality flexible cystoscopy: a validation study. Br J Urol 90:828–832CrossRef
32.
Stunt JJ, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Horeman T, van Dijk CN, Tuijthof GJM (2014) Validation of the PASSPORT V2 training environment for arthroscopic skills. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.​1007/​s00167-014-3213-0
33.
Stunt JJ, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, van Dijk CN, Tuijthof GJM (2015) Validation of the ArthroS virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic skills. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3436–3442CrossRefPubMed
34.
Tashiro Y, Miura H, Nakanishi Y, Okazaki K, Iwamoto Y (2009) Evaluation of skills in arthroscopic training based on trajectory and force data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:546–552CrossRefPubMed
35.
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
36.
37.
Weiner IB, Craighead WE (eds) (2010) The corsini encyclopedia of psychology. Wiley, Hoboken
38.
Wentink M, Stassen LPS, Alwayn I, Hosman RJAW, Stassen HG (2003) Rasmussen’s model of human behavior in laparoscopy training. Surg Endosc 17:1241–1246CrossRefPubMed
39.
Ziegler R, Fischer G, Müller W, Göbel M (1995) Virtual reality arthroscopy training simulator. Comput Biol Med 25:193–203CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validation of the updated ArthroS simulator: face and construct validity of a passive haptic virtual reality simulator with novel performance metrics
Authors
Patrick Garfjeld Roberts
Paul Guyver
Mathew Baldwin
Kash Akhtar
Abtin Alvand
Andrew J. Price
Jonathan L. Rees
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4114-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2/2017 Go to the issue

Knee

Post-operative deformation and extrusion of the discoid lateral meniscus following a partial meniscectomy with repair

Knee

Long-term follow-up of isolated ACL tears treated without ligament reconstruction

Sports Medicine

Level of evidence of free papers presented at the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy congress from 2008 to 2016

Knee

Patients control preferences and results in knee arthroplasty

Knee

Comparison of the insertion of the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus: discoid versus non-discoid

Knee

Biomechanical and viscoelastic properties of different posterior meniscal root fixation techniques