Simulation and Computer-Animated Devices: The New Minimally Invasive Skills Training Paradigm

Urologic Clinics of North America

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 519-531

  Sweet, Robert M ^a   McDougall, Elspeth M ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DEVICE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SIMULATION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SURGICAL TRAINING; TECHNOLOGY; UROLOGIC SURGERY;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; UROLOGY;

EID: 50349094777     PISSN: 00940143     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2008.05.008     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Reznick R.K., and MacRae H. Teaching surgical skills-changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 355 25 (2006) 2664-2669
2. Das S. Susruta, the pioneer urologist of antiquity. J Urol 65 5 (2001) 1405-1408
3. Kohn L.T. The Institute of Medicine report on medical error: overview and implications for pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 58 1 (2001) 63-66
4. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Available at:. http://www.m-w.com Accessed February 12, 2008
5. Wilson K.A., Burke C.S., Priest H.A., et al. Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams. Qual Saf Health Care 14 4 (2005) 303-309
6. Moorthy K., Munz Y., Adams S., et al. A human factors analysis of technical and team skills among surgical trainees during procedural simulations in a simulated operating theatre. Ann Surg 242 5 (2005) 631-639
7. Seymour N.E., Gallagher A.G., Roman S.A., et al. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236 4 (2002) 458-463 [discussion: 463-4]
8. Norman G.R. The adult learner: a mythical species. Acad Med 74 8 (1999) 886-889
9. Williams W. Effective teaching: gauging learning while teaching. J Higher Educ 56 3 (1985) 320-327
10. Davis D., O'Brien M.A., Freemantle N., et al. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?. JAMA 282 9 (1999) 867-874
11. Kolb D. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (1984), Prentice-Hall Publishers, Englewood (CO)
12. Gallagher A.G., Ritter E.M., Champion H., et al. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg 241 2 (2005) 364-372
13. Kahol K, Satava RM, Smith ML, et al. The effective short-term pretrial practice on surgical proficiency in simulated environments: a randomized trial of the preoperative warm up effect. (Personal Communication with Dr. Satava, submitted to J Am Coll Surg).
14. Gallagher A.G., and Cates C.U. Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: what this means for procedural-based medicine. JAMA 292 24 (2004) 3024-3026
15. Rashid H.H., Kowalewski T., Oppenheimer P., et al. The virtual reality transurethral prostatic resection trainer: evaluation of discriminate validity. J Urol 177 6 (2007) 2283-2286
16. Freeman J., Cash C., Yonke A., et al. A longitudinal primary care program in an urban public medical school: three years of experience. Acad Med 70 Suppl 1 (1995) S64-S68
17. Sachdeva A.K., Pellegrini C.A., and Johnson K.A. Support for simulation-based surgical education through American College of Surgeons-accredited education institutes. World J Surg 32 2 (2008) 196-207
18. Johnson K.A., Sachdeva A.K., and Pellegrini C.A. The critical role of accreditation in establishing the ACS Education Institutes to advance patient safety through simulation. J Gastrointest Surg 12 2 (2008) 207-209
19. Sweet R, Hananel D, Lawrenz F. A new approach to validation, reliability and study design in technical skills training. Med Educ, submitted.
20. Spencer F. Teaching and measuring surgical techniques: the technical evaluation of competence. Bull Am Coll Surg 63 (1978) 9-12
21. Bloom B.S. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: the cognitive domain (1956), David McKay Co inc, New York
22. Peters J.H., Fried G.M., Swanstrom L.L., et al. Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135 1 (2004) 21-27
23. Dall'Era M., Tran L., and Sweet R.M. An interactive computer-based simulator to train cognitive surgical skills (2004), Western Section AUA, SanDiego (CA). http://www.redllamainc.com Accessed December 15, 2007
24. Moorthy K., Munz Y., Sarker S.K., et al. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ 327 7422 (2003) 1032-1037
25. Reznick R., Regehr R., MacRae H., et al. Testing technical skill via an innovative "bench station" examination. Am J Surg 173 3 (1997) 226-230
26. Residency Competency Evaluation System. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/resEvalSystem/reval_urology.asp. 2008, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Accessed December 15, 2007.
27. Yedidia M.J., Gillespie C.C., Karchur E., et al. Effect of communications training on medical student performance. JAMA 290 9 (2003) 1157-1165
28. Tubaro A. Initial experience of an objective structured clinical examination in evaluating urology residents. Curr Opin Urol 11 1 (2001) 110
29. Gettman M.T., Karnes R.J., Arnold J.J., et al. Urology resident training with an unexpected patient death scenario: experiential learning with high fidelity simulation. J Urol 180 1 (2008) 283-286
30. Riley W, Davis S, Miller K, et al. High reliability healthcare: identifying and mitigating breeches in defensive barriers to reduce patient harm. In: UK Ergonomics Patient Safety Society. 2008. Cambridge.
31. Tran L, D'allera M, Sweet RM. Validation study of a computer-based open surgical trainer: the SimPraxis simulation platform. Society for Simulation in Healthcare, in press.
32. Matsumoto E.D. Low-fidelity ureteroscopy models. J Endourol 21 3 (2007) 248-251
33. Brehmer M., and Swartz R. Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur Urol 48 3 (2005) 458-463 [discussion: 463]
34. Knoll T., Trojan L., Haecker A., et al. Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int 95 9 (2005) 1276-1279
35. Ogan K., Jacomides L., Shulman M.J., et al. Virtual ureteroscopy predicts ureteroscopic proficiency of medical students on a cadaver. J Urol 172 2 (2004) 667-671
36. Matsumoto E.D., Pace K.T., and D'A Honey R.J. Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int J Urol 13 7 (2006) 896-901
37. Chou D.S., Abdelshehid C., Clayman R.V., et al. Comparison of results of virtual-reality simulator and training model for basic ureteroscopy training. J Endourol 20 4 (2006) 266-271
38. Bird V.G., Fallon B., and Winfield H.N. Practice patterns in the treatment of large renal stones. J Endourol 17 6 (2003) 355-363
39. Watterson J.D., Soon S., and Jana K. Access related complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: urology versus radiology at a single academic institution. J Urol 176 1 (2006) 142-145
40. Hammond L., Ketchum J., and Schwartz B.F. A new approach to urology training: a laboratory model for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 172 5 Pt 1 (2004) 1950-1952
41. Häcker A., Wendt-Nordahl G., Honeck P., et al. A biological model to teach percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique with ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided access. J Endourol 21 5 (2007) 545-550
42. Strohmaier W.L., and Giese A. Ex vivo training model for percutaneous renal surgery. Urol Res 33 3 (2005) 191-193
43. Knudsen B.E., Matsumoto E.D., Chew B.H., et al. A randomized, controlled, prospective study validating the acquisition of percutaneous renal collecting system access skills using a computer based hybrid virtual reality surgical simulator: phase I. J Urol 176 5 (2006) 2173-2178
44. Gettman M.T., Le C.Q., Rangel L.J., et al. Analysis of a computer based simulator as an educational tool for cystoscopy: subjective and objective results. J Urol 179 1 (2008) 267-271
45. Sweet R.M. Review of trainers for transurethral resection of the prostate skills. J Endourol 21 3 (2007) 280-284
46. Wright J.L., Hoffman H.G., and Sweet R.M. Virtual reality as an adjunctive pain control during transurethral microwave thermotherapy. Urology 66 6 (2005) 1320 e1-1320e3
47. Sweet R., Kowalewski T., Oppenheimer P., et al. Face, content and construct validity of the University of Washington virtual reality transurethral prostate resection trainer. J Urol 172 5 Pt 1 (2004) 1953-1957
48. Sweet R., Porter J., Oppenheimer P., et al. Simulation of bleeding in endoscopic procedures using virtual reality. J Endourol 16 7 (2002) 451-455
49. Oppenheimer P., Gupta A., Weghorst S., et al. The representation of blood flow in endourologic surgical simulations. Stud Health Technol Inform 81 (2001) 365-371
50. Reich O., Noll M., Gratzke C., et al. High-level virtual reality simulator for endourologic procedures of lower urinary tract. Urology 67 6 (2006) 1144-1148
51. Anastakis D.J., Regehr G., Reznick R.K., et al. Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 177 2 (1999) 167-170
52. Fried G.M., Derossis A.M., Bothwell J., et al. Comparison of laparoscopic performance in vivo with performance measured in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 13 11 (1999) 1077-1081 [discussion: 1082]
53. Scott D.J., Bergen P.C., Rege R.V., et al. Laparoscopic training on bench models: better and more cost effective than operating room experience?. J Am Coll Surg 191 3 (2000) 272-283
54. Van Sickle K.R., McClusky D.A., Gallagher A.G., et al. Construct validation of the ProMIS simulator using a novel laparoscopic suturing task. Surg Endosc 19 9 (2005) 1227-1231
55. McCluney A.L., Vassiliou M.C., Kaneva P.A., et al. FLS simulator performance predicts intraoperative laparoscopic skill. Surg Endosc 21 11 (2007) 1991-1995
56. Botden S.M., Buznik S.N., Schijven M.P., et al. Augmented versus virtual reality laparoscopic simulation: What is the difference? A comparison of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic simulator versus LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. World J Surg 31 4 (2007) 764-772
57. Ritter E.M., Kindelan T.W., Michael C., et al. Concurrent validity of augmented reality metrics applied to the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS). Surg Endosc 21 8 (2007) 1441-1445
58. Fichera A., Prachand V., Kives S., et al. Physical reality simulation for training of laparoscopists in the 21st century. A multispecialty, multi-institutional study. JSLS 9 2 (2005) 125-129
59. Hasson H.M., Kumari N.V., and Eekhout J. Training simulator for developing laparoscopic skills. JSLS 5 3 (2001) 255-265
60. Sørhus V., Eriksen E.M., Grønningsaeter N., et al. A new platform for laparoscopic training and education. Stud Health Technol Inform 111 (2005) 502-507
61. van Dongen K.W., Tournoij E., van der Zee D.C., et al. Construct validity of the LapSim: Can the LapSim virtual reality simulator distinguish between novices and experts?. Surg Endosc 21 8 (2007) 1413-1417
62. Hogle N.J., Briggs W.M., and Fowler D.L. Documenting a learning curve and test-retest reliability of two tasks on a virtual reality training simulator in laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Educ 64 6 (2007) 424-430
63. Woodrum D.T., Andreatta P.B., Yellamanchilli R.K., et al. Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator. Am J Surg 191 1 (2006) 28-32
64. Eriksen J.R., and Grantcharov T. Objective assessment of laparoscopic skills using a virtual reality stimulator. Surg Endosc 19 9 (2005) 1216-1219
65. Duffy A.J., Hogle N.J., McCarthy H., et al. Construct validity for the LAPSIM laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 19 3 (2005) 401-405
66. Rodriguez-Covarrubias F., Martinez-Liévano L., Gabilondo Pliego B., et al. [Use of a virtual immersion computer simulator as a model for basic training in laparoscopic urology]. Actas Urol Esp 30 8 (2006) 819-823 [in Spanish]
67. Maass H., Chantier C., Trantakis C., et al. Fundamentals of force feedback and application to a surgery simulator. Comput Aided Surg 8 6 (2003) 283-291
68. McDougall E.M., Corica F.A., Boker J.R., et al. Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgical simulator. J Am Coll Surg 202 5 (2006) 779-787
69. Ayodeji I.D., Schijven M., Jakimowicz J., et al. Face validation of the Simbionix LAP Mentor virtual reality training module and its applicability in the surgical curriculum. Surg Endosc 21 9 (2007) 1641-1649
70. Yamaguchi S., Konishi K., Yasunaga T., et al. Construct validity for eye-hand coordination skill on a virtual reality laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 21 12 (2007) 2253-2257
71. Zhang A., Hünerbein M., Dai Y., et al. Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgery simulator (Lap Mentor): Evaluation of surgical skill with a virtual laparoscopic training simulator. Surg Endosc 22 6 (2008) 1440-1444
72. Chaudhry A., Sutton C., Wood J., et al. Learning rate for laparoscopic surgical skills on MIST VR, a virtual reality simulator: quality of human-computer interface. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 81 4 (1999) 281-286
73. Hackethal A., Immenroth M., and Burger T. Evaluation of target scores and benchmarks for the traversal task scenario of the minimally invasive surgical trainer-virtual reality (MIST-VR) laparoscopy simulator. Surg Endosc 20 4 (2006) 645-650
74. Aggarwal R., Grantcharov T., Moorthy K., et al. A competency-based virtual reality training curriculum for the acquisition of laparoscopic psychomotor skill. Am J Surg 191 1 (2006) 128-133
75. Chung S.Y., Landsittel D., Chon C.H., et al. Laparoscopic skills training using a webcam trainer. J Urol 173 1 (2005) 180-183
76. Verdaasdonk E.G., Dankelman J., Lange J.F., et al. Transfer validity of laparoscopic knot-tying training on a VR simulator to a realistic environment: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 22 7 (2008) 1636-1642
77. Verdaasdonk E.G., Stassen L.P., Monteny L.J., et al. Validation of a new basic virtual reality simulator for training of basic endoscopic skills: the SIMENDO. Surg Endosc 20 3 (2006) 511-518
78. Verdaasdonk E.G., Stassen L.P., Schijven M.P., et al. Construct validity and assessment of the learning curve for the SIMENDO endoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 21 8 (2007) 1406-1412
79. Hubens G., Coveliers H., Balliu L., et al. A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 17 10 (2003) 1595-1599
80. Harper J.D., Kaiser S., Edrahimi K., et al. Prior video game exposure does not enhance robotic surgical performance. J Endourol 21 10 (2007) 1207-1210
81. Samadi D., Levinson A., Hakimi A., et al. From proficiency to expert, when does the learning curve for robotic-assisted prostatectomies plateau? The Columbia University experience. World J Urol 25 1 (2007) 105-110
82. Lendvay T, Casale P, Sweet RM, et al. Virtual reality simulation for robotic surgery. Surg Endosc, submitted.
83. Rashid H., Bekley J., Vollenweider M., et al. Creating a patient specific interactive virtual reality model for robotic prostatectomy. J Endourol 20 Suppl 1 (2006) A326
84. Halvorsen F.H., Elle O.J., Dalinin V.V., et al. Virtual reality simulator training equals mechanical robotic training in improving robot-assisted basic suturing skills. Surg Endosc 20 10 (2006) 1565-1569
85. Satava R.M. Disruptive visions: a robot is not a machine. Surg Endosc 18 4 (2004) 617-620