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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Robotic Surgery
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2022

03-09-2021 | Review Article

A review of simulation training and new 3D computer-generated synthetic organs for robotic surgery education

Authors: Daniel M. Costello, Isabel Huntington, Grace Burke, Brooke Farrugia, Andrea J. O’Connor, Anthony J. Costello, Benjamin C. Thomas, Philip Dundee, Ahmed Ghazi, Niall Corcoran

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

We conducted a comprehensive review of surgical simulation models used in robotic surgery education. We present an assessment of the validity and cost-effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality simulation, animal, cadaver and synthetic organ models. Face, content, construct, concurrent and predictive validity criteria were applied to each simulation model. There are six major commercial simulation machines available for robot-assisted surgery. The validity of virtual reality (VR) simulation curricula for psychomotor assessment and skill acquisition for the early phase of robotic surgery training has been demonstrated. The widespread adoption of VR simulation has been limited by the high cost of these machines. Live animal and cadavers have been the accepted standard for robotic surgical simulation since it began in the early 2000s. Our review found that there is a lack of evidence in the literature to support the use of animal and cadaver for robotic surgery training. The effectiveness of these models as a training tool is limited by logistical, ethical, financial and infection control issues. The latest evolution in synthetic organ model training for robotic surgery has been driven by new 3D-printing technology. Validated and cost-effective high-fidelity procedural models exist for robotic surgery training in urology. The development of synthetic models for the other specialties is not as mature. Expansion into multiple surgical disciplines and the widespread adoption of synthetic organ models for robotic simulation training will require the ability to engineer scalability for mass production. This would enable a transition in robotic surgical education where digital and synthetic organ models could be used in place of live animals and cadaver training to achieve robotic surgery competency.
Literature
1.
Hung AJ et al (2015) Development and validation of a novel robotic procedure specific simulation platform: partial nephrectomy. J Urol 194(2):520–526PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Moglia A et al (2016) A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol 69(6):1065–1080PubMedCrossRef
5.
Azadi S et al (2021) Robotic surgery: the impact of simulation and other innovative platforms on performance and training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(3):490–495PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
8.
Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291PubMedCrossRef
9.
Chong GO et al (2009) Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the early and locally advanced cervical cancer: comparison of the first 50 and second 50 cases. Int J Gynecol Cancer 19(8):1459–1464PubMedCrossRef
10.
Soomro NA et al (2020) Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery. BJS open 4(1):27–44PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Ahmed K et al (2011) Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review. J Urol 186(1):26–34PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
Lovegrove C et al (2016) Structured and modular training pathway for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): validation of the RARP assessment score and learning curve assessment. Eur Urol 69(3):526–535PubMedCrossRef
15.
Reznick RK, MacRae H (2006) Teaching surgical skills–changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 355(25):2664–2669PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hannan EL et al (1995) The decline in coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality in New York State: the role of surgeon volume. JAMA 273(3):209–213PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Ruby ST et al (1996) Outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy in connecticut: the impact of volume and specialty. Ann Vasc Surg 10(1):22–26PubMedCrossRef
19.
Gawande AA et al (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133(6):614–621PubMedCrossRef
20.
Ghazi A et al (2020) Multi-institutional validation of a perfused robot-assisted partial nephrectomy procedural simulation platform utilizing clinically relevant objective metrics of simulators (CROMS). BJU Int. 2021 Jun;127(6):645–653. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​bju.​15246
21.
Johnson BA et al (2019) Design and validation of a low-cost, high-fidelity model for urethrovesical anastomosis in radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 33(4):331–336PubMedCrossRef
22.
Janetschek G (2019) Standardized and validated training programs for robot-assisted laparoscopy: the challenge of the future. Eur Urol 75(5):786–787PubMedCrossRef
23.
Abboudi H et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators - a systematic review. BJU Int 111(2):194–205PubMedCrossRef
24.
MacCraith E, Forde JC, Davis NF (2019) Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges. J Robot Surg 13(3):371–377PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
27.
Feifer A et al (2011) Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training. BJU Int 108(10):1652–1656PubMedCrossRef
28.
Carey JN et al (2015) Perfused fresh cadavers: method for application to surgical simulation. Am J Surg 210(1):179–187PubMedCrossRef
29.
Yang B et al (2009) A novel training model for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using porcine kidney. J Endourol 23(12):2029–2033PubMedCrossRef
30.
Passerotti CC et al (2009) Comparing the quality of the suture anastomosis and the learning curves associated with performing open, freehand, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in a swine animal model. J Am Coll Surg 208(4):576–586PubMedCrossRef
31.
Raison N et al (2021) An evaluation of live porcine simulation training for robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 15(3):429–434PubMedCrossRef
32.
Gilbody J et al (2011) The use and effectiveness of cadaveric workshops in higher surgical training: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(5):347–352PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Martin M et al (1998) Competency-based instruction in critical invasive skills improves both resident performance and patient safety. Surgery 124(2):313–317PubMedCrossRef
34.
Dunnington GL (2003) A model for teaching sentinel lymph node mapping and excision and axillary lymph node dissection. J Am Coll Surg 197(1):119–121PubMedCrossRef
35.
Giger U et al (2008) Laparoscopic training on Thiel human cadavers: a model to teach advanced laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 22(4):901–906PubMedCrossRef
36.
Reed AB et al (2009) Back to basics: use of fresh cadavers in vascular surgery training. Surgery 146(4):757–763PubMedCrossRef
37.
Supe A et al (2005) Cadaver as a model for laparoscopic training. Indian J Gastroenterol 24(3):111PubMed
38.
Gunst M et al (2009) Trauma operative skills in the era of nonoperative management: the trauma exposure course (TEC). J Trauma Acute Care Surg 67(5):1091–1096CrossRef
39.
Mitchell EL et al (2012) A fresh cadaver laboratory to conceptualize troublesome anatomic relationships in vascular surgery. J Vasc Surg 55(4):1187–1194PubMedCrossRef
40.
Anastakis DJ et al (1999) Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 177(2):167–170PubMedCrossRef
41.
Katz R et al (2003) Cadaveric versus porcine models in urological laparoscopic training. Urol Int 71(3):310–315PubMedCrossRef
42.
Rai BP et al (2015) Preliminary validation of Thiel embalmed cadavers for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Endourol 29(5):595–603PubMedCrossRef
43.
Bergeson RK et al (2008) How accurately do novice surgeons place thoracic pedicle screws with the free hand technique? Spine 33(15):E501–E507PubMedCrossRef
44.
45.
46.
Cheung CL et al (2014) Use of 3-dimensional printing technology and silicone modeling in surgical simulation: development and face validation in pediatric laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Surg Educ 71(5):762–767PubMedCrossRef
47.
Alemozaffar M et al (2014) Validation of a novel, tissue-based simulator for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 28(8):995–1000PubMedCrossRef
48.
Kiely DJ et al (2015) Advancing surgical simulation in gynecologic oncology: robotic dissection of a novel pelvic lymphadenectomy model. Simul Healthc 10(1):38–42PubMedCrossRef
49.
Marecik SJ et al (2008) A lifelike patient simulator for teaching robotic colorectal surgery: how to acquire skills for robotic rectal dissection. Surg Endosc 22(8):1876–1881PubMedCrossRef
50.
Ross HM et al (2008) Adoption of laparoscopic colectomy: results and implications of ASCRS hands-on course participation. Surg Innov 15(3):179–183PubMedCrossRef
51.
Van Bruwaene S et al (2015) Porcine cadaver organ or virtual-reality simulation training for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Surg Educ 72(3):483–490PubMedCrossRef
52.
Parikh N, Sharma P (2018) Three-dimensional printing in urology: history, current applications, and future directions. Urology 121:3–10PubMedCrossRef
53.
Goldman Sachs Investor Talk (2020) World Robotic Symposium.
54.
55.
Öpik R, et al (2012) Development of high fidelity liver and kidney phantom organs for use with robotic surgical systems. In: 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob).
56.
Silberstein J et al (2014) Physical Models of Renal Malignancies Using Standard Cross-sectional Imaging and 3-Dimensional Printers: A Pilot Study. Urology 84:268–273PubMedCrossRef
57.
Turney BW (2014) A new model with an anatomically accurate human renal collecting system for training in fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy access. J Endourol 28(3):360–363PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Adams F et al (2017) Soft 3D-printed phantom of the human kidney with collecting system. Ann Biomed Eng 45(4):963–972PubMedCrossRef
59.
von Rundstedt FC et al (2017) Utility of patient-specific silicone renal models for planning and rehearsal of complex tumour resections prior to robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 119(4):598–604CrossRef
60.
Choi E et al (2020) A high-fidelity phantom for the simulation and quantitative evaluation of transurethral resection of the prostate. Ann Biomed Eng 48(1):437–446PubMedCrossRef
61.
Timberlake MD et al (2020) Design and validation of a low-cost, high-fidelity model for robotic pyeloplasty simulation training. J Pediatr Urol 16(3):332–339PubMedCrossRef
62.
Saba P et al (2020) Development of a high-fidelity robot-assisted kidney transplant simulation platform using three-dimensional printing and hydrogel casting technologies. J Endourol 34(10):1088–1094PubMedCrossRef
63.
Witthaus MW et al (2020) Incorporation and validation of clinically relevant performance metrics of simulation (CRPMS) into a novel full-immersion simulation platform for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (NS-RARP) utilizing three-dimensional printing and hydrogel casting technology. BJU Int 125(2):322–332PubMedCrossRef
64.
van Renterghem K, Ghazi A (2020) 3D pelvic cadaver model: a novel approach to surgical training for penile implant surgery. Int J Impot Res 32(3):261–263PubMedCrossRef
65.
66.
Ramos P et al (2014) Face, content, construct and concurrent validity of dry laboratory exercises for robotic training using a global assessment tool. BJU Int 113(5):836–842PubMedCrossRef
67.
Varras M et al (2020) Role of laparoscopic simulators in the development and assessment of laparoscopic surgical skills in laparoscopic surgery and gynecology (Review). World Acad Sci J 2(2):65–76
68.
Miyazaki D et al (2019) Validation of an educational simulation model for vaginal hysterectomy training: a pilot study. Int Urogynecol J 30(8):1329–1336PubMedCrossRef
69.
Bartellas M et al (2017) Three-dimensional printing of a hemorrhagic cervical cancer model for postgraduate gynecological training. Cureus 9(1):e950PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Goudie C et al (2018) Investigating the efficacy of anatomical silicone models developed from a 3d printed mold for perineal repair suturing simulation. Cureus 10(8):e3181–e3181PubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Yousuf AA et al (2017) The development of a retroperitoneal dissection model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217(4):483.e1-483.e3CrossRef
72.
Frazzini Padilla PM et al (2018) Development and validation of a simulation model for laparoscopic colpotomy. Obstet Gynecol 132(Suppl 1):19s–26sPubMedCrossRef
73.
Milad M et al (2017) Laparoscopic major vascular injury simulation using a synthetic compared with porcine model. Obstet Gynecol 130:24S-28SPubMedCrossRef
74.
Towner MN et al (2019) Creation and piloting of a model for simulating a minimally invasive myomectomy. Cureus 11(3):e4223PubMedPubMedCentral
75.
Santangelo G et al (2018) Development of a whole-task simulator for carotid endarterectomy. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 14(6):697–704CrossRef
76.
Wei F et al (2019) Three-dimensional printed dry lab training models to simulate robotic-assisted pancreaticojejunostomy. ANZ J Surg 89(12):1631–1635PubMedCrossRef
77.
Moglia A et al (2014) Distribution of innate ability for surgery amongst medical students assessed by an advanced virtual reality surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 28(6):1830–1837PubMedCrossRef
78.
Moglia A et al (2018) Distribution of innate psychomotor skills recognized as important for surgical specialization in unconditioned medical undergraduates. Surg Endosc 32(10):4087–4095PubMedCrossRef
79.
Rehman S et al (2013) Simulation-based robot-assisted surgical training: a health economic evaluation. Int J Surg 11(9):841–846PubMedCrossRef
80.
Culligan P et al (2014) Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20(1):48–51PubMedCrossRef
81.
Van Bruwaene S, Schijven MP, Miserez M (2014) Assessment of procedural skills using virtual simulation remains a challenge. J Surg Educ 71(5):654–661PubMedCrossRef
82.
83.
84.
85.
Anon (2002) Statement on the use of animals in research, education, and teaching. Bull Am Coll Surg 87:10
86.
Leblanc F et al (2010) A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. J Am Coll Surg 211(2):250–255PubMedCrossRef
87.
Dijkhuizen LGM, Gelderman HT, Duijst WLJM (2020) Review: the safe handling of a corpse (suspected) with COVID-19. J Forensic Leg Med 73:101999–101999PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
88.
WHO (2020) Infection prevention and control for the safe management of a dead bodyin the context of COVID-19. World Health Organisation
89.
90.
Martelli N et al (2016) Advantages and disadvantages of 3-dimensional printing in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 159(6):1485–1500PubMedCrossRef
91.
Metadata
Title
A review of simulation training and new 3D computer-generated synthetic organs for robotic surgery education
Authors
Daniel M. Costello
Isabel Huntington
Grace Burke
Brooke Farrugia
Andrea J. O’Connor
Anthony J. Costello
Benjamin C. Thomas
Philip Dundee
Ahmed Ghazi
Niall Corcoran
Publication date
03-09-2021
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01302-8

Other articles of this Issue 4/2022

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in indian men of age 75 years and above: a propensity score-matched analysis

Original Article

Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: outcomes from 500 consecutive cases in the UK

Correction

Correction to: Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA

Original Article

Implementation of a standardized robotic assistant surgical training curriculum

Original Article

Heller myotomy perforation: robotic visualization decreases perforation rate and revisional surgery is a perforation risk

Original Article

Evaluating the ability of students to learn and utilize a novel telepresence platform, Proximie