Pilot study of surgical training using a virtual robotic surgery simulator

Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 219-226

  Tergas, Ana I ^a,b   Sheth, Sangini B ^a,b   Green, Isabel C ^a   Giuntoli II, Robert L ^a   Winder, Abigail D ^a,b   Fader, Amanda N ^a,b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^b GREATER BALTIMORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer simulation; Gynecologic surgery; Minimally invasive education; Robotic surgery; Robotics; Surgical education; Surgical procedures; Surgical simulator training

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL STUDENT; PILOT STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTICS; SUTURING METHOD;

ADULT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; MALE; PILOT PROJECTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84881240949     PISSN: 10868089     EISSN: 19383797     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4293/108680813X13654754535872     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ballantyne GH, Moll F. The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1293-1304, vii.
2. Shafer A, Boggess JF. Robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(Suppl):S18-S23.
3. van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van't Hullenaar CD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IA. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1365-1371.
4. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JG, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology consensus statement. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:180-184.
5. Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, Ahmad S, Di Silverio E, Spinillo A. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1422-1431.
6. Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco JA, Andradas E. Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1772-1783.
7. Lim PC, Kang E, Park do H. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120:413-418.
8. Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar PF. Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated review. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:852061.
9. Intuitive Surgical. Annual report 2009. Available at: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/46120E/20100222/AR_53320/HTML2/default.htm. Accessed December 5, 2011.
10. Intuitive Surgical. Annual report 2010. Available at: http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-reportsAnnual. Accessed December 5, 2011.
11. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011;185:1191-1197.
12. Gobern JM, Novak CM, Lockrow EG. Survey of robotic surgery training in obstetrics and gynecology residency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:755-760.
13. Lepine LA, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, et al. Hysterectomy surveillance-United States, 1980-1993. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1997;46:1-15.
14. Whiteman MK, Hillis SD, Jamieson DJ, et al. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:34.e1-34.e7.
15. Sutherland LM, Middleton PF, Anthony A, et al. Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2006;243:291-300.
16. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186:1019-1024.
17. Da Vinci Surgical Simulator brochure. Available at: http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/skills_simulator/. Accessed December 18, 2011.
18. Mimic Technologies. Available at: http://www.mimic.ws/products/performance-evaluation.php. Accessed December 18, 2011.
19. The Chamberlin Group. Available at: http://www.thecgroup.com/product/reproductive-urological/robotic-3/robotic-oval-hexpod. Accessed December 18, 2011.
20. Schreuder H, Wolswijk R, Zweemer R, Schijven M, Verheijen R. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach. BJOG. 2012;119:137-149.
21. Lerner MA, Ayalew M, Peine WJ, Sundaram CP. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the Da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol. 2010;24:467-472.
22. Boyle E, O'Keeffe DA, Naughton PA, Hill AD, McDonnel CO, Moneley D. The importance of expert feedback during endovascular simulator training. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54:240-248.e1.
23. Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML. Robotic surgical training of the urologic oncologist. Urol Oncol. 2009;27:214-217.