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 STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2009

Open Access 01-08-2009 | Review

What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery?

Authors: Sanne M. B. I. Botden, Jack J. Jakimowicz

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To prevent unnecessary errors and adverse results of laparoscopic surgery, proper training is of paramount importance. A safe way to train surgeons for laparoscopic skills is simulation. For this purpose traditional box trainers are often used, however they lack objective assessment of performance. Virtual reality laparoscopic simulators assess performance, but lack realistic haptic feedback. Augmented reality (AR) combines a virtual reality (VR) setting with real physical materials, instruments, and feedback. This article presents the current developments in augmented reality laparoscopic simulation.

Methods

Pubmed searches were performed to identify articles regarding surgical simulation and augmented reality. Identified companies manufacturing an AR laparoscopic simulator received the same questionnaire referring to the features of the simulator.

Results

Seven simulators that fitted the definition of augmented reality were identified during the literature search. Five of the approached manufacturers returned a completed questionnaire, of which one simulator appeared to be VR and was therefore not applicable for this review.

Conclusion

Several augmented reality simulators have been developed over the past few years and they are improving rapidly. We recommend the development of AR laparoscopic simulators for component tasks of procedural training. AR simulators should be implemented in current laparoscopic training curricula, in particular for laparoscopic suturing training.
Literature
1.
Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N (1999) Assessing operative skill needs to become more objective. Br Med J 318:887–888
2.
Dufy AJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Lew JI, Egan A, Christos P (2005) Construct validity for the LAPSIM laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 19:401–405CrossRef
3.
Grantcharov T (2004) Randomized clinical trail of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 91(2):146–150PubMedCrossRef
4.
Aggarwal R, Moorthy K, Darzi A (2004) Laparoscopic skills training and assessment. Br J Surg 91:1549–1558PubMedCrossRef
5.
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(5):1214–1222PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hyun KK, Rattner D, Srinivasan MA (2004) Virtual-reality-based laparoscopic surgical training: the role of simulation fidelity in haptic feedback. Comput Aided Surg 9(5):227–234CrossRef
7.
Maass H, Cantier B, Cakmak HK, Trantakis C, Kuehnapfel UG (2003) Fundamentals of force feedback and application to a surgery simulator. Comput Aided Surg 8(6):283–291PubMedCrossRef
8.
Tholey GBS, Desay JP, Castellanos AE (2005) Force feedback plays a significant role in minimally invasive surgery: results and analysis. Ann Surg 241(1):102–109PubMed
9.
Gunther S, Rosen J, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN (2007) The red DRAGON: a multi-modality system for simulation and training in minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 125:149–154PubMed
10.
Rosen J, Brown JD, Chang L, Sinanan MN, Hannaford B (2006) Generalized approach for modeling minimally invasive surgery as a stochastic process using a discrete Markov model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53(3):399–413PubMedCrossRef
11.
Rosen J, Richards C, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN (2000) Hidden Markov models of minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 70:279–285PubMed
12.
Richards C, Rosen J, Hannaford B, Pellegrini C, Sinanan MN (2000) Skills evaluation in minimally invasive surgery using force/torque signatures. Surg Endosc 14(9):791–798PubMedCrossRef
13.
Rosen J, Solazzo M, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN (2002) Task decomposition of laparoscopic surgery for objective evaluation of surgical residents’ learning curve using hidden Markov model. Comput Aided Surg 7(1):49–61PubMedCrossRef
14.
Rosen J, Solazzo M, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN (2001) Objective laparoscopic skills assessments of surgical residents using Hidden Markov Models based on haptic information and tool/tissue interactions. Stud Health Technol Inform 81:417–423PubMed
15.
Rosen J, Brown JD, Barreca M, Chang L, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN (2002) The Blue DRAGON—a system for monitoring the kinematics and the dynamics of endoscopic tools in minimally invasive surgery for objective laparoscopic skill assessment. Stud Health Technol Inform 85:412–418PubMed
16.
Rosen J, Chang L, Brown JD, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN, Satava R (2003) Minimally invasive surgery task decomposition–etymology of endoscopic suturing. Stud Health Technol Inform 94:295–301PubMed
17.
Rosen J, Hannaford B, Richards CG, Sinanan MN (2001) Markov modeling of minimally invasive surgery based on tool/tissue interaction and force/torque signatures for evaluating surgical skills. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 48(5):579–591PubMedCrossRef
18.
Rosen J, MacFarlane M, Richards CG, Hannaford B, Sinanan MN (1999) Surgeon-tool force/torque signatures—evaluation of surgical skills in minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 62:290–296PubMed
19.
Narula VK, Watson WC, Davis SS, Hinshaw K, Needleman BJ, Mikami DJ, Hazey JW, Winston JH, Muscarella P, Rubin M, Patel V, Melvin WS (2007) A computerized analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 21(12):2258–2261PubMedCrossRef
20.
Broe D, Ridgway PF, Johnson S, Tierney S, Conlon KC (2006) Construct validation of a novel hybrid surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 20(6):900–904PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ritter EM, Kindeland TW, Michael C, Pimentel EA, Bowyer MW (2007) Concurrent validity of augmented reality metrics applied to the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS). Surg Endosc 21:1441–1445PubMedCrossRef
22.
Botden SMBI, Buzink SN, Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ (2007) Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: what is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World J Surg 31(4):764–772PubMedCrossRef
23.
Sickle Van KR (2005) Construct validation of the ProMIS simulator using a novel laparoscopic suturing task. Surg Endosc 19:1227–1231CrossRef
24.
Botden SMBI, Buzink SN, Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ (2008) Face Validity Study of the ProMIS Augmented Reality Laparoscopic Suturing Simulator. Surg Technol Int 17 (in press)
25.
Chang L, Petros J, Hess DT, Rotondi C, Babineau TJ (2007) Integrating simulation into a surgical residency program: is voluntary participation effective? Surg Endosc 21(3):418–421PubMedCrossRef
26.
Maithel S, Sierra R, Korndorffer J, Neumann P, Dwason S, Jones D, Scott D (2006) Construct and face validity of MIST-VR, Endotower, and CELTS: are we ready for skills assessment using simulators? Surg Endosc 20(1):104–112PubMedCrossRef
27.
Maithel SK, Villegas L, Stypolous N, Dawson S, Jones DB (2005) Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc 19(3):406–411PubMedCrossRef
28.
Stylopoulos N, Cotin S, Maithel SK, Ottensmeyer M, Jackson PG, Bardsley RS, Neumann PF, Rattner DW, Dawson SL (2004) Computer-enhanced laparoscopic training system (CELTS): bridging the gap. Surg Endosc 18(5):782–789PubMedCrossRef
29.
Stylopoulos N, Cotin S, Dawson S, Ottensmyer M, Neumann P, Bardsley R, Russel M, Jackson P, Rattner D (2003) CELTS: a clinically-based Computer Enhanced Laparoscopic Training System. Stud Health Technol Inform 94:336–342PubMed
30.
Kim HK, Rattner DW, Srinivasan MA (2004) Virtual-reality-based laparoscopic surgical training: the role of simulation fidelity in haptic feedback. Comput Aided Surg 9(5):227–234PubMedCrossRef
31.
Aggarwal R, Moorthy K, Darzi A (2004) Laparoscopic skills training and assessment. Br J Surg 91(12):1549–1558PubMedCrossRef
32.
Strom P, Hedman L, Sarna L, Kjellin A, Wredmark T, Fellander-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(9):1383–1388PubMedCrossRef
33.
Lamata P, Gomez EJ, Sanchez-Margallo FM, Lamata F, Antolin M, Rodriguez S, Oltra A, Uson J (2006) Study of laparoscopic forces perception for defining simulation fidelity. Stud Health Technol Inform 119:288–292PubMed
34.
Gonzales R, Bowers S, Smith CD, Ramshaw BJ (2004) Does setting specific goals and providing feedback during training resulting better acquisition of laparoscopic skills? Am Surg 70:35–39
35.
Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240(3):518–525, discussion 525–528PubMedCrossRef
36.
Madan AK, Frantzides CT, Shervin N, Tebbit CL (2003) Assessment of individual hand performance in box trainers compared to virtual reality trainers. Am Surg 69(12):1112–1114PubMed
37.
Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, 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(1):23–29PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery?
Authors
Sanne M. B. I. Botden
Jack J. Jakimowicz
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0144-1

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2009 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy versus intragastric balloon: a case-control study

OriginalPaper

A comparative study on the short-term clinicopathologic outcomes of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for transverse colon cancer

OriginalPaper

General complications following laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy and analysis of techniques to manage them

OriginalPaper

Feasibility of right-sided total extraperitoneal procedure for inguinal hernia repair after appendectomy: a prospective cohort study

New Technology

A new electrocautery pleural biopsy technique using an insulated-tip diathermic knife during semirigid pleuroscopy

OriginalPaper

The learning curve for endoscopic thyroidectomy: a single surgeon’s experience