A Review of Training Research and Virtual Reality Simulators for the da Vinci Surgical System

Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 12-26

  Liu, May ^a   Curet, Myriam ^a  

^a INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC   (United States)

Author keywords

robotics; skills assessment; surgery; training; virtual reality simulation

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEVICES; EDUCATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMAN; ROBOTICS;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; ROBOTICS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84921295167     PISSN: 10401334     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2014.979181     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Gohil R, Ahmed K, Kooiman G, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B. Current status of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. British Journal of Urology International 2012;110:1602–6.
2. Sohn W, Lee HJ, Ahlering TE. Robotic surgery: Review of prostate and bladder cancer. Cancer Journal (United States) 2013;19:133–9.
3. Chung YJ, Kim MR. Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology: Indications and efficacy. Journal of the Korean Medical Association 2012;55:635–40.
4. O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA. Robot-assisted surgery: Impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. International Urogynecological Journal 2012;23:1163–73.
5. Lehr EJ, Rodriguez E, Chitwood WR. Robotic cardiac surgery. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2011;24:77–85.
6. Veronesi G. Robotic surgery for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2013;25:107–14.
7. Maan ZN, Gibbins N, Al-Jabri T, D’Souza AR. The use of robotics in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery: A systematic review. American Journal of Otolaryngology 2012;33:137–46.
8. Baek SK, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A. Robotic surgery: Colon and rectum. Cancer Journal (United States) 2013;19:140–6.
9. Shaligram A, Unnirevi J, Simorov A, Kothari VM, Oleynikov D. How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic heller myotomy for achalasia. Surgical Endoscopy 2012;26:1047–50.
10. Arain NA, Dulan G, Hogg DC, Rege RV, Powers CE, Tesfay ST, Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: Reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit. Sugical Endoscopy 2012;26:2740–5.
11. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KK, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ. Content and face validity of a comprehensive robotic skills training program for general surgery, urology, and gynecology. American Journal of Surgery 2012;203:535–9.
12. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: Construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Sugical Endoscopy 2012;26:1516–21.
13. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 2012;152:477–88.
14. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: Validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. Journal of Urology 2012;187:247–52.
15. Lyons C, Goldfarb D, Jones SL, Badhiwala N, Miles B, Link R, Which skills really matter? Proving face, content, and construct validity for a commercial robotic simulator. Surgical Endoscopy 2013;27:2020–30.
16. Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, Jehl JP, Felblinger J, Bresler L, The virtual reality simulator dv-trainer((r)) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surgical Endoscopy 2012;26:2587–93.
17. Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K, Desai MM, Gill IS, Goh AC. Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. British Journal of Urology International 2013;112:864–71.
18. Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Syed JR, Rehman S, Ghani K, Autorino R, Fundamental skills of robotic surgery: A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial for validation of a simulation-based curriculum. Urology 2013;81:767–74.
19. Goh AC, Joseph RA, O’Malley M, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Development and validation of inanimate tasks for robotic surgical skills assessment and training. Journal of Urology 2010;183(Suppl.):516.
20. Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondré K, Stanbridge D, A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. American Journal of Surgery 2005;190:107–13.
21. Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J, McCulloch W. Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. American Journal of Surgery 1997;173:226–30.
22. Guru KA, Kuvshinoff BW, Pavlov-Shapiro S, Bienko MB, Aftab MN, Brady WE, Impact of robotics and laparoscopy on surgical skills: A comparative study. Journal of American College of Surgery 2007;204:96–101.
23. Hagen ME, Meehan JJ, Inan I, Morel P. Visual clues act as a substitute for haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2008;22:1505–8.
24. Hance J, Aggarwal R, Undre S, Darzi A. Skills training in telerobotic surgery. International Journal of Medical Robotics Computer Assisted Surgery 2005;1:7–12.
25. Tewari AK, Patel ND, Leung RA, Yadav R, Vaughan ED, El-Douaihy Y, Visual cues as a surrogate for tactile feedback during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Posterolateral margin rates in 1340 consecutive patients. British Journal of Urology International 2010;106:528–36.
26. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: Is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 2002;60:39–45.
27. Sun LW, Van Meer F, Schmid J, Bailly Y, Thakre AA, Yeung CK. Advanced da Vinci Surgical System simulator for surgeon training and operation planning. International Journal for Medical Robotics 2007;3:254–51.
28. Suzuki S, Suzuki N, Hayashibe M, Hattori A, Konishi K, Kakeji Y, Tele-surgery simulation to perform surgical training of abdominal da vinci surgery. International Congress Series 2005;1281:531–6.
29. Deo D, De S, Singh TP. Physics-based stereoscopic suturing simulation with force feedback and continuous multipoint interactions for training on the da vinci surgical system. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2007;125:115–20.
30. Chien JH, Suh IH, Park S-H, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D, Siu K-C. Enhancing fundamental robot-assisted surgical proficiency by using a portable virtual simulator. Surgical Innovation 2013;20:198–203.
31. Fiedler MJ, Chen SJ, Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N. Virtual reality for robotic laparoscopic surgical training. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2007;125:127–9.
32. Katsavelis D, Siu KC, Brown-Clerk B, Lee IH, Lee YK, Oleynikov D, Validated robotic laparoscopic surgical training in a virtual-reality environment. Surgical Endoscopy 2009;23:66–73.
33. McDougall EM. Validation of surgical simulators. Journal of Endourology 2007;21:244–7.
34. Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scheele F, Bemelmans BL, Scherpbier AJ. Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: A critical review of present, past, and future. Surgical Endoscopy 2010;24:536–46.
35. Sweet RM, Hananel D, Lawrenz F. A unified approach to validation, reliability, and education study design for surgical technical skills training. Archives of Surgery 2010;145:197–201.
36. Van Nortwick SS, Lendvay TS, Jensen AR, Wright AS, Horvath KD, Kim S. Methodologies for establishing validity in surgical simulation studies. Surgery 2010;147:622–30.
37. Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O, Guru KA, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—A systematic review. British Journal of Urology International 2013;111:194–205.
38. Lallas CD, Davis JW, Members of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. Robotic surgery training with commercially available simulation systems in 2011: A current review and practice pattern survey from the society of urologic robotic surgeons. Journal of Endourology 2012;26:283–93.
39. Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi A. Short-phase training on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance in tele-robotic surgery. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Comnputer-Assisted Surgery 2008;4:139–45.
40. Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W, Ahmed K, Elhage O, Jaye P, Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (sep robot). Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2011;93:152–6.
41. Lin DW, Romanelli JR, Kuhn JN, Thompson RE, Bush RW, Seymour NE. Computer-based laparoscopic and robotic surgical simulators: Performance characteristics and perceptions of new users. Surgical Endoscopy 2009;23:209–14.
42. van der Meijden OA, Broeders IA, Schijven MP. The sep “robot”: A valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the da Vinci Surgical System? Surgical Technology International 2010;19:51–8.
43. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. Journal of Urology 2011;186:1019–24.
44. Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I, Shichman SJ. Da Vinci skills simulator construct validation study: Correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 2012;80:330–6.
45. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR, Narins H, Gomella LG, Trabulsi EJ, Face, content, and construct validation of the da vinci skills simulator. Urology 2012;79:1068–72.
46. Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S, Lusch A, Graversen JA, Landman J, Validation, correlation, and comparison of the dv trainer and the dv surgical skills simulator using the mimic software for urologic robotic surgical education. Journal of Endourology 2012;26:1629–34.
47. Brinkman WM, Luursema JM, Kengen B, Schout BM, Witjes JA, Bekkers RL. Da Vinci Skills Simulator for assessing learning curve and criterion-based training of robotic basic skills. Urology 2013;81:562–6.
48. Foell K, Furse A, Honey RJD, Pace KT, Lee JY. Multidisciplinary validation study of the da Vinci Skills Simulator: Educational tool and assessment device. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2013;7:365–9.
49. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 2010;76:357–62.
50. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Sathyaseelan G, Chandrasekhar R, Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. British Journal of Urology International 2011;107:1130–5.
51. Colaco M, Balica A, Su D, Barone J. Initial experiences with ross surgical simulator in residency training: A validity and model analysis. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2013;7:71–5.
52. Lendvay TS, Casale P, Sweet R, Peters C. Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2008;2:145–9.
53. Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, Libertino JA, Moinzadeh A. Face, content, and construct validity of dv-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 2009;73:1288–92.
54. Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y, Sundaram CP. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. Journal of Endourology 2009;23:503–8.
55. Lerner MA, Ayalew M, Peine WJ, Sundaram CP. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da vinci surgical system? Journal of Endourology 2010;24:467–72.
56. Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA, Gupta M, Benson MC, Cooper KL, Validating the use of the mimic dv-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology 2011;78:1326–30.
57. Kang SG, Yang KS, Ko YH, Kang SH, Park HS, Lee JG, A study on the learning curve of the robotic virtual reality simulator. Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques 2012;22:438–42.
58. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Huynh VB, Etafy M, McDougall EM. Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator—Role as an assessment tool? Journal of Urology 2012;187:998–1002.
59. Lendvay TS, Brand TC, White L, Kowalewski T, Jonnadula S, Mercer LD, Virtual reality robotic surgery warm-up improves task performance in a dry laboratory environment: A prospective randomized controlled study. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2013;216:1181–92.
60. Teishima J, Hattori M, Inoue S, Ikeda K, Hieda K., Miyamoto K, et al. Impact of laparoscopic experience on the proficiency gain of urologic surgeons in robot-assisted surgery. Journal of Endourology 2012;26:1635–8.
61. Thiel DD, Patel VR, Larson T, Lannen A, Leveillee RJ. Assessment of robotic simulation by trainees in residency programs of the southeastern section of the American Urologic Association. Journal of Surgical Education 2013;70:571–7.
62. American Educational Research Association tAPA, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999.
63. Colliver JA, Conlee MJ, Verhulst SJ. From test validity to construct validity … And back? Medical Education 2012;46:366–71.
64. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. American Journal of Medicine 2006;119:166 e7–16.
65. Downing SM. Validity: On meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education 2003;37:830–7.
66. Downing SM. Reliability: On the reproducibility of assessment data. Medical Education 2004;38:1006–12.
67. Downing SM. Face validity of assessments: Faith-based interpretations or evidence-based science? Medical Education 2006;40:7–8.
68. Dunkin B, Adrales GL, Apelgren K, Mellinger JD. Surgical simulation: A current review. Surgical Endoscopy 2007;21:357–66.
69. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM. Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: Rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surgical Endoscopy 2003;17:1525–9.
70. Herman JL, Choi K. Validation of ELA and mathematics assessments: A general approach (CRESST article). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) 2012. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/states_schools/ValidationELA_FINAL.pdf.
71. Kane MT. Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement 2001;38:319–42.
72. Korndorffer JR Jr, Kasten SJ, Downing SM. A call for the utilization of consensus standards in the surgical education literature. American Journal of Surgery 2010;199:99–104.
73. Chang L, Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sinanan MN. Robotic surgery: Identifying the learning curve through objective measurement of skill. Surgical Endoscopy 2003;17:1744–8.
74. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ. Robotic suturing on the fls model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surgical Endoscopy 2011;25:2141–6.
75. Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N. Robotic surgery training and performance: Identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency. Surgical Endoscopy 2006;20:96–103.
76. Suh I, Mukherjee M, Oleynikov D, Siu KC. Training program for fundamental surgical skill in robotic laparoscopic surgery. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 2011;7:327–33.
77. Tausch TJ, Kowalewski TM, White LW, McDonough PS, Brand TC, Lendvay TS. Content and construct validation of a robotic surgery curriculum using an electromagnetic instrument tracker. Journal of Urology 2012;188:919–23.
78. Verner L, Oleynikov D, Holtmann S, Haider H, Zhukov L. Measurements of the level of surgical expertise using flight path analysis from da Vinci robotic surgical system. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2003;94:373–8.
79. Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, Martin S, Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci System. Surgical Endoscopy 2004;18:372–8.
80. Kumar R, Jog A, Malpani A, Yagvolgyi B, Yuh D, Nguyen H, Assessing system operation skills in robotic surgery trainees. International Journal of Medical Robotics 2012;8:118–24.
81. Kumar R, Jog A, Vagvolgyi B, Nguyen H, Hager G, Chen DC, Objective measures for longitudinal assessment of robotic surgery training. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2012;143:52–34.
82. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2004;18:790–5.
83. Kesavadas T, Stegemann A, Sathyaseelan G, Chowriappa A, Srimathveeravalli G, Seixas-Mikelus S, Validation of robotic surgery simulator (ROSS). Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2011;163:274–6.
84. Do AT, Cabbad MF, Kerr A, Serur E, Robertazzi RR, Stankovic MR. A warm-up laparoscopic exercise improves the subsequent laparoscopic performance of ob-gyn residents: A low-cost laparoscopic trainer. Journal for the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons2006;10:297–301.
85. Calatayud D, Arora S, Aggarwal R, Kruglikova I, Schulze S, Funch-Jensen P, Warm-up in a virtual reality environment improves performance in the operating room. Annals of Surgery 2010;251:1181–5.
86. Moldovanu R, Tarcoveanu E, Dimofte G, Lupascu C, Bradea C. Preoperative warm-up using a virtual reality simulator. Journal for the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2011;15:533–8.
87. Mucksavage P, Lee J, Kerbl DC, Clayman RV, McDougall EM. Preoperative warming up exercises improve laparoscopic operative times in an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. Journal of Endourology 2012;26:765–8.
88. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Osann KE, Winfield HN, Kahol K, Laparoscopic warm-up exercises improve performance of senior-level trainees during laparoscopic renal surgery. Journal of Endourology 2012;26:545–50.
89. Coste-Maniere E, Adhami L, Mourgues F, Carpentier A. Planning, simulation, and augmented reality for robotic cardiac procedures: The stars system of the chir team. Seminars in Throacic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2003;15:141–56.
90. Falk V, Mourgues F, Adhami L, Jacobs S, Thiele H, Nitzsche S, Cardio navigation: Planning, simulation, and augmented reality in robotic assisted endoscopic bypass grafting. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2005;79:2040–7.
91. Hayashibe M, Suzuki N, Hashizume M, Konishi K, Hattori A. Robotic surgery setup simulation with the integration of inverse-kinematics computation and medical imaging. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2006;83:63–72.
92. Willaert WI, Aggarwal R, Daruwalla F, Van Herzeele I, Darzi AW, Vermassen AZ, Simulated procedure rehearsal is more effective than a preoperative generic warm-up for endovascular procedures. Annals of Surgery 2012;255:1184–9.
93. Lenihan JP, Jr. Navigating credentialing, privileging, and learning curves in robotics with an evidence and experienced-based approach. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;54:382–90.
94. Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, Kelly DR. Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007;92:1087–101.
95. Stefanidis D, Acker CE, Greene FL. Performance goals on simulators boost resident motivation and skills laboratory attendance. Journal of Surgical Education 2010;67:66–70.
96. Sadideen H, Kneebone R. Practical skills teaching in contemporary surgical education: How can educational theory be applied to promote effective learning? American Journal of Surgery 2012;204:396–401.
97. Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;356:387–96.
98. Zevin B, Levy JS, Satava RM, Grantcharov TP. A consensus-based framework for design, validation, and implementation of simulation-based training curricula in surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2012;215:580–6.
99. Stefanidis D, Acker CE, Swiderski D, Heniford BT, Greene FL. Challenges during the implementation of a laparoscopic skills curriculum in a busy general surgery residency program. Journal of Surgery Education 2008;65:4–7.
100. Panait L, Bell RL, Roberts KE, Duffy AJ. Designing and validating a customized virtual reality-based laparoscopic skills curriculum. J Surg Educ 2008;65:413–7.
101. Arora S, Lamb B, Undre S, Kneebone R, Darzi A, Sevdalis N. Framework for incorporating simulation into urology training. British Journal of Urology International 2011;107:806–10.
102. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. Journal of Urology 2011;185:1191–7.
103. Carraccio C, Wolfsthal SD, Englander R, Ferentz K, Martin C. Shifting paradigms: From flexner to competencies. Academic Medicine 2002;77:361–7.
104. Cendan J, Wier D, Behrns K. A primer on standards setting as it applies to surgical education and credentialing. Surgical Endoscopy 2013;27:2631–3637.
105. Downing SM, Tekian A, Yudkowsky R. Procedures for establishing defensible absolute passing scores on performance examinations in health professions education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2006;18:50–7.
106. Crossan A, Brewster S, Reid S, Mellor D (Eds.). Multimodal feedback cues to aid veterinary training simulations. In S Brewster, R Murray-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Haptic Human-Computer Interaction Workshop. New York, NY: Springer, 2000.
107. Wegner K. Surgical navigation system and method using audio feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display. British Computer Society, 1998.
108. Kuchenbecker K, Gewirtz J, McMahan W, Standish D, Martin P, Bohren J, Verrotouch: High-frequency acceleration feedback for telerobotic surgery. In AL Kappers, JF Erp, W Bergmann Tiest, FT Helm (Eds.), Haptics: Generating and perceiving tangible sensations (pp. 189–96). Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2010.
109. Gambadauro P, Torrejon R. The “tele” factor in surgery today and tomorrow: Implications for surgical training and education. Surgery Today 2013;43:115–22.
110. Mackay S, Morgan P, Datta V, Chang A, Darzi A. Practice distribution in procedural skills training: A randomized controlled trial. Surgical Endoscopy 2002;16:957–61.
111. Stefanidis D, Walters KC, Mostafavi A, Heniford BT. What is the ideal interval between training sessions during proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training? American Journal of Surgery 2009;197:126–9.
112. Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R. Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Medical Education 2010;44:75–84.
113. Voss G, Bockholt U, Los Arcos JL, Muller W, Oppelt P, Stahler J. Lahystotrain intelligent training system for laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2000;70:359–64.
114. Guadagnoli MA, Lee TD. Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior 2004;36:212–24.
115. Benson AD, Kramer BA, Boehler M, Schwind CJ, Schwartz BF. Robot-assisted laparoscopic skills development: Formal versus informal training. Journal of Endourology 2010;24:1351–5.
116. Garris R, Ahlers R, Driskell J. Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation and Gaming 2002;33:441–67.
117. Delacruz GC, Chung GKWK, Baker EL. Validity evidence for games as assessment environments (CRESST Rep. No. 773). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing 2010.
118. Arnab S, Berta R, Earp J, de Freitas S, Popescu M, Romero M, Framing the adoption of serious games in formal education. Electronic Journal of E-Learning 2012;10:159–71.
119. Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers and Education 2012;58:661–86.
120. Gamarra A, Hogle NJ, Azab B, Bloom SW, Widmann WD. Assessing the value of the simpraxis laparoscopic cholecystectomy trainer. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2012;16:191–4.
121. Mattar AA, Gribble PL. Motor learning by observing. Neuron 2005;46:153–60.
122. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2011.
123. Seixas-Mikelus SA, Adal A, Kesavadas T, Baheti A, Srimathveeravalli G, Can image-based virtual reality help teach anatomy? Journal of Endourology 2010;24:629–34.
124. Ramanathan R, Salamanca JIM, Mandhani A, Leung RA, Rao SR, Berryhill R, Does 3-dimensional (3-d) visualization improve the quality of assistance during robotic radical prostatectomy? World Journal of Urology 2009;27:95–9.
125. Hinata N, Iwamoto H, Morizane S, Hikita K, Yao A, Muraoka K, Dry box training with three-dimensional vision for the assistant surgeon in robot-assisted urological surgery. International Journal of Urology 2013;20;10:1037–41.
126. Thiel DD, Lannen A, Richie E, Dove J, Gajarawala NM, Igel TC. Simulation-based training for bedside assistants can benefit experienced robotic prostatectomy teams. Journal of Endourology 2013;27:230–7.
127. Wiecha J, Heyden R, Sternthal E, Merialdi M. Learning in a virtual world: Experience with using second life for medical education. Jounal of Medical Internet Research 2010;12:e1.
128. Milburn JA, Khera G, Hornby ST, Malone PS, Fitzgerald JE. Introduction, availability and role of simulation in surgical education and training: Review of current evidence and recommendations from the association of surgeons in training. International Journal of Surgery 2012;10:393–8.
129. Alnajjar HM, Virdi J. Video-games station or minimally invasive skills training station? British Journal of Urology International 2009;104:1020.
130. Stefanidis D, Arora S, Parrack DM, Hamad GG, Capella J, Grantcharov T, Research priorities in surgical simulation for the 21st century. American Journal of Surgery 2012;203:49–53.