Comparative analysis of the functionality of simulators of the da Vinci surgical robot

BackgroundThe implementation of robotic technology in minimally invasive surgery has led to the need to develop more efficient and effective training methods, as well as assessment and skill maintenance tools for surgical education. Multiple simulators and procedures are available for educational and training purposes. A need for comparative evaluations of these simulators exists to aid users in selecting an appropriate device for their purposes.MethodsWe conducted an objective review and comparison of the design and capabilities of all dedicated simulators of the da Vinci robot, the da Vinci Skill Simulator (DVSS) (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), dV-Trainer (dVT) (Mimic Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), and Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) (Simulated Surgical Skills, LLC, Williamsville, NY, USA). This provides base specifications of the hardware and software, with an emphasis on the training capabilities of each system.ResultsEach simulator contains a large number of training exercises, DVSS = 40, dVT = 65, and RoSS = 52 for skills development. All three offer 3D visual images but use different display technologies. The DVSS leverages the real robotic surgeon’s console to provide visualization, hand controls, and foot pedals. The dVT and RoSS created simulated versions of all of these control systems. They include systems management services which allow instructors to collect, export, and analyze the scores of students using the simulators.ConclusionsThis study is the first to provide comparative information of the three simulators functional capabilities with an emphasis on their educational skills. They offer unique advantages and capabilities in training robotic surgeons. Each device has been the subject of multiple validation experiments which have been published in the literature. But those do not provide specific details on the capabilities of the simulators which are necessary for an understanding sufficient to select the one best suited for an organization’s needs.

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

[2]  T. Kesavadas,et al.  1512 DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION OF A SIMULATION-BASED CURRICULUM FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED SURGERY , 2012 .

[3]  A. Meraney,et al.  da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. , 2012, Urology.

[4]  Isabel C. Green,et al.  A Pilot Study of Surgical Training Using a Virtual Robotic Surgery Simulator , 2013, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[5]  A. Scherpbier,et al.  Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[6]  Jon C. Gould,et al.  Validation of a virtual reality-based robotic surgical skills curriculum , 2013, Surgical Endoscopy.

[7]  M. Lerner,et al.  Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? , 2010, Journal of endourology.

[8]  Jaime Landman,et al.  Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. , 2011, Urology.

[9]  Michael A Liss,et al.  Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci trainer(™) and the daVinci surgical skills simulator(™) using the Mimic(™) software for urologic robotic surgical education. , 2012, Journal of endourology.

[10]  J. Kaouk,et al.  Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. , 2013, Urology.

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

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

[13]  T. Kesavadas,et al.  Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. , 2010, Urology.

[14]  C. Lallas,et al.  Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. , 2012, Urology.

[15]  N. Seymour,et al.  Surgical resident performance on a virtual reality simulator correlates with operating room performance , 2007 .

[16]  Chandru P Sundaram,et al.  Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[17]  Thomas S. Lendvay,et al.  Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator , 2008, Journal of robotic surgery.

[18]  Timothy M. Kowalewski,et al.  Virtual reality robotic surgery warm-up improves task performance in a dry laboratory environment: a prospective randomized controlled study. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[19]  M. Schijven,et al.  Validation of a Novel Virtual Reality Simulator for Robotic Surgery , 2011, TheScientificWorldJournal.

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

[21]  Joseph Barone,et al.  Initial experiences with RoSS surgical simulator in residency training: a validity and model analysis , 2013, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[22]  Elspeth M McDougall,et al.  Validation of surgical simulators. , 2007, Journal of endourology.

[23]  Jennifer Priestley,et al.  Predictive Validity of a Training Protocol Using a Robotic Surgery Simulator , 2014, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

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