Top

Published in:

01-06-2019 | Review Article

Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges

Authors: Eoin MacCraith, James C. Forde, Niall F. Davis

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2019

Abstract

Simulation in surgery is a safe and cost-effective way of training. Operating room performance is improved after simulation training. The necessary attributes of surgical simulators are acceptability and cost-effectiveness. It is also necessary for a simulator to demonstrate face, content, predictive, construct and concurrent validity. Urologists have embraced robot-assisted surgery. These procedures require steep learning curves. There are 6 VR simulators available for robot-assisted surgery; the daVinci Skills Simulator (dVSS), the Mimic dV Trainer (MdVT), the ProMIS simulator, the Simsurgery Educational Platform (SEP) simulator, the Robotic Surgical Simulator (RoSS) and the RobotiX Mentor (RM). Their efficacy is limited by the lack of comparative studies, standardisation of validation and high cost. There are a number of robotic surgery training curricula developed in recent years which successfully include simulation training. There are growing calls for these simulators to be incorporated into the urology training curriculum globally to shorten the learning curve without compromising patient safety. Surgical educators in urology should aim to develop a cost-effective, acceptable, validated simulator that can be incorporated into a standardised, validated robot-assisted surgery training curriculum for the next generation of robotic surgeons.

Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol 10(4):520–523PubMed

Hoznek A (2008) History of robotic surgery in urology. In: John H, Wiklund P (eds) Robotic urology. Springer, Berlin

Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML (2009) Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. Urol Oncol 27:214–217CrossRef

Guru KA, Kuvshinoff BW, Pavlov- Shapiro S et al (2007) Impact of robotics and laparoscopy on surgical skills: a comparative study. J Am Coll Surg 204:96–101CrossRef

Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM et al (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133(6):614e21CrossRef

Rosen KR (2008) The history of medical simulation. J Crit Care 23:157–166CrossRef

Kallstrom R, Hjertberg H, Svanvik J (2010) Impact of virtual reality-simulated training on urology residents’ performance of transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol/Endourol Soc 24(9):1521e8

Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fleming JB et al (2002) Comparison of video trainer and virtual reality training systems on acquisition of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 16(3):406–411CrossRef

Limberg AA (1984) The planning of local plastic operations on the body surface: theory and practice. DC Health and Company, Lexington

10.

Agha RA, Fowler AJ (2015) The role and validity of surgical simulation. Int Surg 100(2):350–357CrossRef

11.

Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–463 (discussion 463–4) CrossRef

12.

ACGME (2008) Program requirements of graduate medical education in surgery. Residency Review Committee. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago

13.

Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int 111(2):194–205CrossRef

14.

Brewin J, Ahmed K, Challacombe B (2014) An update and review of simulation in urological training. Int J Surg 12(2):103–108CrossRef

15.

Schout BM, Muijtjens AM, Hendrikx AJ et al (2010) Acquisition of flexible cystoscopy skills on a virtual reality simulator by experts and novices. BJU Int 105:234–239CrossRef

16.

Mishra S, Kurien A, Patel R et al (2010) Validation of virtual reality simulation for percutaneous renal access training. J Endourol 24:635–640CrossRef

17.

Amirian MJ, Lindner SM, Trabulsi EJ et al (2014) Surgical suturing training with virtual reality simulation versus dry lab practice: an evaluation of performance improvement, content, and face validity. J Robotic Surg 8:329–335CrossRef

18.

Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186:1019–1024CrossRef

19.

Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ et al (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73:1288–1292CrossRef

20.

Feifer A, Al-Ammari A, Kovac E et al (2011) Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training. BJU Int 108:1652–1656CrossRef

21.

Jonsson MN, Mahmood M, Askerud T et al (2011) ProMIS can serve as a da Vinci® simulator—a construct validity study. J Endourol 25:345–350CrossRef

22.

McDonough P, Peterson A, Brand T (2010) Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance. J Urol 183(Suppl.):e515

23.

Shamim Khan M, Ahmed K, Gavazzi A et al (2013) Development and implementation of centralized simulation training: evaluation of feasibility, acceptability and construct validity. BJU Int 111(3):518–523CrossRef

24.

Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2008) Short-phase training on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance in tele-robotic surgery. Int J Med Robot 4(2):139–145CrossRef

25.

Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:146–150CrossRef

26.

Guru KA, Baheti A, Kesavadas T et al (2009) In-vivo videos enhance cognitive skills for Da Vinci surgical system. J Urol 181(Suppl.):823 (abstract 2272) CrossRef

27.

Kesavadas T, Kumar A, Srimathveeravalli G et al (2009) Efficacy of robotic surgery simulator (RoSS) for the da Vinci® surgical system. J Urol 181(Suppl.):823CrossRef

28.

Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T et al (2011) Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 107:1130–1135CrossRef

29.

Le CQ, Lightner DJ, VanderLei L et al (2007) The current role of medical simulation in American urological residency training programs: an assessment by program directors. J Urol 177(1):288–291CrossRef

30.

Ahmed K, Jawad M, Abboudi M et al (2011) Effectiveness of procedural simulation in urology: a systematic review. J Urol 186:26–34CrossRef

31.

Hertz AM, George EI, Vaccaro CM et al (2018) Head-to-head comparison of three virtual-reality robotic surgery simulators. JSLS. 22(1):e2017.00081CrossRef

32.

Whittaker G, Aydin A, Raison N et al (2016) Validation of the robotiX mentor robotic surgery simulator. J Endourol 30(3):338–346CrossRef

33.

Schlottmann F, Long JM, Brown S et al (2018) Low confidence levels with the robotic platform among senior surgical residents: simulation training is needed. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0853-y CrossRefPubMed

34.

Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel H et al (2016) The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol Focus 2(1):105–108CrossRef

35.

Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P et al (2015) Pilot Validation Study of the European Association of Urology Robotic Training Curriculum. Eur Urol 68(2):292–299CrossRef

36.

Stolzenburg JU, Qazi HA, Rai BP (2015) The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: the journey has only just begun. Eur Urol 68:300–301CrossRef

37.

Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A et al (2015) An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg 13:115–123CrossRef

38.

Veneziano D, Smith A, Reihsen T, Speich J, Sweet RM (2015) The SimPORTAL fluoro-less C-arm trainer: an innovative device for percutaneous kidney access. J Endourol 29:240–245CrossRef

39.

Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2016) A systematic review of virtual reality simulators for robot-assisted surgery. Eur Urol 69(6):1065–1080CrossRef

40.

Roscoe SN, Williges BH (1980) Measurement of transfer of training. In: Roscoe SN (ed) Aviation psychology. The Iowa State University Press, Iowa

41.

Kumar R, Hemal AK (2005 Oct) Emerging role of robotics in urology. J Minim Access Surg 1(4):202–210PubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 76(2):357–360CrossRef

43.

Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA, Gupta M, Benson MC, Cooper KL, Landman J, Badani KK (2011) Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology 78(6):1326–1330CrossRef

Title: Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges
Authors: Eoin MacCraith
James C. Forde
Niall F. Davis
Publication date: 01-06-2019
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00934-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Robotic simulation training for urological trainees: a comprehensive review on cost, merits and challenges

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

A multi-institutional report of peri-operative and functional outcomes after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with a solitary kidney

Successful robotic extirpation of diaphragmatic seeding of hepatocellular carcinoma after previous rupture

Robotic-assisted free-handed, full-thickness gastric GIST resection with primary repair in unfavorable locations

Optimal surgical intervention for achalasia: laparoscopic or robotic approach

A prediction model relating the extent of intraoperative fascia preservation to erectile dysfunction after nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Evaluation of a pneumatic surgical robot with dynamic force feedback