da Vinci skills simulator for assessing learning curve and criterion-based training of robotic basic skills.

OBJECTIVE To answer 2 research questions: what are the learning curve patterns of novices on the da Vinci skills simulator parameters and what parameters are appropriate for criterion-based robotic training. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 17 novices completed 2 simulator sessions within 3 days. Each training session consisted of a warming-up exercise, followed by 5 repetitions of the "ring and rail II" task. Expert participants (n = 3) performed a warming-up exercise and 3 repetitions of the "ring and rail II" task on 1 day. We analyzed all 9 parameters of the simulator. RESULTS Significant learning occurred on 5 parameters: overall score, time to complete, instrument collision, instruments out of view, and critical errors within 1-10 repetitions (P <.05). Economy of motion and excessive instrument force only showed improvement within the first 5 repetitions. No significant learning on the parameter drops and master workspace range was found. Using the expert overall performance score (n = 3) as a criterion (overall score 90%), 9 of 17 novice participants met the criterion within 10 repetitions. CONCLUSION Most parameters showed that basic robotic skills are learned relatively quickly using the da Vinci skills simulator, but that 10 repetitions were not sufficient for most novices to reach an expert level. Some parameters seemed inappropriate for expert-based criterion training because either no learning occurred or the novice performance was equal to expert performance.

[1]  H. Schreuder,et al.  Robotic surgery , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[2]  J. Korndorffer,et al.  Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload , 2010, Surgical Endoscopy.

[3]  A. Moinzadeh,et al.  Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. , 2009, Urology.

[4]  Jacques Felblinger,et al.  The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills , 2012, Surgical Endoscopy.

[5]  Sung Gu Kang,et al.  A study on the learning curve of the robotic virtual reality simulator. , 2012, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[6]  Thenkurussi Kesavadas,et al.  Validation of Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) , 2011, MMVR.

[7]  I. Gill,et al.  Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Dimitrios Stefanidis,et al.  Do novices display automaticity during simulator training? , 2008, American journal of surgery.

[9]  Jie Cai,et al.  Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Yoonae A. Cho,et al.  Evaluation of Criteria of Stereoacuity for Titmus, Randot & TNO Stereotests , 1999 .

[11]  Dimitrios Stefanidis,et al.  Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[12]  B. Davies,et al.  Robotic surgery , 1993, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[13]  Elspeth M McDougall,et al.  Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator--role as an assessment tool? , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Li-Ming Su,et al.  Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy--critical analysis of the results. , 2006, European urology.

[15]  E. Verdaasdonk,et al.  The influence of different training schedules on the learning of psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery , 2007, Surgical Endoscopy.