Display options
Cite
Raison N, Harrison P, Abe T, et al. Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(12):6897-6902doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w.
Raison, N., Harrison, P., Abe, T., Aydin, A., Ahmed, K., & Dasgupta, P. (2021). Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Surgical endoscopy, 35(12), 6897-6902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w
Raison, Nicholas, et al. "Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial." Surgical endoscopy vol. 35,12 (2021): 6897-6902. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w
Raison N, Harrison P, Abe T, Aydin A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P. Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):6897-6902. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w. Epub 2021 Jan 04. PMID: 33398587; PMCID: PMC8599326.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):6897-6902. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w. Epub 2021 Jan 04.

Procedural virtual reality simulation training for robotic surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

Surgical endoscopy

Nicholas Raison, Patrick Harrison, Takashige Abe, Abdullatif Aydin, Kamran Ahmed, Prokar Dasgupta

Affiliations

  1. Division of Transplantation Immunology and Mucosal Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, 5th Floor Tower Wing, London, SE1 9RT, UK. [email protected].
  2. Division of Transplantation Immunology and Mucosal Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, MRC Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, 5th Floor Tower Wing, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
  3. Department of Urology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

PMID: 33398587 PMCID: PMC8599326 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08197-w

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) training is widely used for surgical training, supported by comprehensive, high-quality validation. Technological advances have enabled the development of procedural-based VR training. This study assesses the effectiveness of procedural VR compared to basic skills VR in minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS: 26 novice participants were randomised to either procedural VR (n = 13) or basic VR simulation (n = 13). Both cohorts completed a structured training programme. Simulator metric data were used to plot learning curves. All participants then performed parts of a robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) on a fresh frozen cadaver. Performances were compared against a cohort of 9 control participants without any training experience. Performances were video recorded and assessed blindly using GEARS post hoc.

RESULTS: Learning curve analysis demonstrated improvements in technical skill for both training modalities although procedural training was associated with greater training effects. Any VR training resulted in significantly higher GEARS scores than no training (GEARS score 11.3 ± 0.58 vs. 8.8 ± 2.9, p = 0.002). Procedural VR training was found to be more effective than both basic VR training and no training (GEARS 11.9 ± 2.9 vs. 10.7 ± 2.8 vs. 8.8 ± 1.4, respectively, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS: This trial has shown that a structured programme of procedural VR simulation is effective for robotic training with technical skills successfully transferred to a clinical task in cadavers. Further work to evaluate the role of procedural-based VR for more advanced surgical skills training is required.

© 2020. The Author(s).

Keywords: Robotic surgery; Simulation; Surgical education; Virtual reality

References

  1. Satava RM (1993) Virtual reality surgical simulator. The first steps. Surg Endosc 7:203–205 - PubMed
  2. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R (2013) Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach 35:e867-898 - PubMed
  3. Vapenstad C, Buzink SN (2013) Procedural virtual reality simulation in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 27:364–377 - PubMed
  4. Larsen CR, Soerensen JL, Grantcharov TP, Dalsgaard T, Schouenborg L, Ottosen C, Schroeder TV, Ottesen BS (2009) Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 338:b1802 - PubMed
  5. Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2007) Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 246:771–779 - PubMed
  6. Brewin J, Tang J, Dasgupta P, Khan MS, Ahmed K, Bello F, Kneebone R, Jaye P (2015) Full immersion simulation: validation of a distributed simulation environment for technical and non-technical skills training in Urology. BJU Int 116:156–162 - PubMed
  7. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–463 (discussion 463–454) - PubMed
  8. Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P (2004) Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 91:146–150 - PubMed
  9. Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R, Ahlering T, Ahlgren G, Artibani W, Barret E, Cathelineau X, Challacombe B, Coloby P, Khan MS, Hubert J, Michel MS, Montorsi F, Murphy D, Palou J, Patel V, Piechaud PT, Van Poppel H, Rischmann P, Sanchez-Salas R, Siemer S, Stoeckle M, Stolzenburg JU, Terrier JE, Thuroff JW, Vaessen C, Van Der Poel HG, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Volpe A, Wagner C, Wiklund P, Wilson T, Wirth M, Witt J, Dasgupta P (2015) Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int 116:93–101 - PubMed
  10. Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Erwin PJ, Cook DA (2015) Linking simulation-based educational assessments and patient-related outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med 90:246–256 - PubMed
  11. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, Guru KA, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int 111:194–205 - PubMed
  12. Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C (2014) Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:48–51 - PubMed
  13. Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, Gill IS, Desai MM (2012) Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 187:630–637 - PubMed
  14. Harrison P, Raison N, Abe T, Watkinson W, Dar F, Challacombe B, Van Der Poel H, Khan MS, Dasgupa P, Ahmed K (2018) The validation of a novel robot-assisted radical prostatectomy virtual reality module. J Surg Educ 75:758–766 - PubMed
  15. Larsen CR, Oestergaard J, Ottesen BS, Soerensen JL (2012) The efficacy of virtual reality simulation training in laparoscopy: a systematic review of randomized trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91:1015–1028 - PubMed
  16. Sweet RM, Hananel D, Lawrenz F (2010) A unified approach to validation, reliability, and education study design for surgical technical skills training. Arch Surg 145:197–201 - PubMed
  17. Holst D, Kowalewski TM, White LW, Brand TC, Harper JD, Sorenson MD, Kirsch S, Lendvay TS (2015) Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: an adjunct to urology resident surgical simulation training. J Endourol 29:604–609 - PubMed

Publication Types