Enhanced robotic surgical training using augmented cisual feedback

Surgical Innovation

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 59-68

  Judkins, Timothy N ^a,b,d   Oleynikov, Dmitry ^d   Stergiou, Nick ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Feedback; Performance; Robotic surgery; Training

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; GRIP STRENGTH; HUMAN; MEDICAL STUDENT; OPERATION DURATION; REAL TIME AUGMENTED VISUAL FEEDBACK INTERFACE; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL INSTRUMENT; SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY; SURGICAL TRAINING; SUTURING METHOD; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 42249100520     PISSN: 15533506     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1553350608315953     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. D'Annibale A., Fiscon V., Trevisan P., et al. The da Vinci robot in right adrenalectomy: Considerations on technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004; 14: 38-41.
2. Munz Y., Moorthy K., Dosis A., et al. The benefits of stereoscopic vision in robotic-assisted performance on bench models. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18: 611-616.
3. Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Munz Y., et al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18: 372-378.
4. Jacobsen G., Elli F., Horgan S. Robotic surgery update. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18: 1186-1191.
5. Intuitive Surgical-Company Profile. http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/ corporate/companyprofile/index.aspx, Intuitive Surgical. Accessed February 2, 2008.
6. Bann SD, Khan MS, Hernandez J., et al. Robotics in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2003; 196: 784-795.
7. Smillie MF Intuitive Surgical. Los Angeles, CA: The Seidler Companies, Inc, 2003.
8. Judkins TN, Oleynikov D., Stergiou N. Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc. In press.
9. Narazaki K., Oleynikov D., Stergiou N. Robotic surgery training and performance: Identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency. Surg Endosc. 2006; 20: 96-103.
10. Narazaki K., Oleynikov D., Stergiou N. Objective assessment of proficiency with bimanual inanimate tasks in robotic laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2007; 17: 47-52.
11. Rose DJ A. Multilevel Approach to the Study of Motor Control and Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1997.
12. Magill RA Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill; 1998.
13. Vander Linden DW, Cauraugh JH, Greene TA The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects. Phys Ther. 1993; 73: 79-87.
14. Faugloire E., Bardy BG, Merhi O., Stoffregen TA Exploring coordination dynamics of the postural system with real-time visual feedback. Neurosci Lett. 2005. 136-141.
15. Inglis J., Campbell D., Donald M. Electromyographic feedback and neuromuscular rehabilitation. Can J Behav Sci. 1976; 8: 299-323.
16. Wolf S. Electromyographic feedback for spinal cord injury patients: A realistic perspective. In: Basmaijian JV, ed. Biofeedback: Principles and Practice for Clinicians. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1983: 130-134.
17. Shumway-Cook A., Anson D., Haller S. Postural sway biofeedback: Its effect on reestablishing stance stability in hemiplegic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988; 69: 395-400.
18. Rosen J., MacFarlane M., Richards C., Hannaford B., Sinanan M. Surgeon-tool force/torque signatures - evaluation of surgical skills in minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1999; 62: 290-296.
19. Rosen J., Massimiliano S., Hannaford B., Sinanan M. Objective laparoscopic skills assessments of surgical residents using Hidden Markov Models based on haptic information and tool/tissue interactions. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001; 81: 417-423.
20. Wenderoth N., Bock O., Krohn R. Learning a new bimanual coordination pattern is influenced by existing attractors. Motor Control. 2002; 6: 166-182.
21. Gray A. Modern Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces With Mathematica. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC. 1997.
22. Weisstein EW Curvature. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html. Accessed August 12, 2006.
23. Campbell MJ, Gardner MJ Calculating confidence intervals for some non-parametric analyses. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988; 296: 1454-1456.
24. Stergiou N. Innovative Analyses of Human Movement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004.
25. De Ugarte DA, Etzioni DA, Gracia C., Atkinson JB Robotic surgery in resident training. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17: 960-963.
26. Chang L., Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sinanan MN Robotic surgery: identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17: 1744-1748.
27. Judkins TN, Oleynikov D., Stergiou N. Real-time augmented feedback benefits robotic laparoscopic training. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005; 119: 243-248.
28. Hadden CM, Magill RA, Sidaway B. Concurrent vs terminal augmented feedback in the acquisition and retention of a discrete bimanual motor task. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1995; 17: S54.
29. Paljic A., Burkhardt J-M., Coquillart S. Evaluation of pseudo-haptic feedback for simulating torque: A comparison between isometric and elastic input devices. In: Proceedings from the 12th International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Tele-operator Systems (HAPTICS '04); March 27-28, 2004; Chicago, IL.
30. Biocca FA, Inoue Y., Lee A., Polinsky H., Tang A. Visual cues and virtual touch: Role of visual stimuli and intersensory integration in cross-modal haptic illusions and the sense of presence. In: Proceedings Presence; October 9-11, 2002; Porto Portugal.