Cargando…

Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are several different commercially available virtual-reality robotic simulators, but very little comparative data. We compared the face and content validity of 3 robotic surgery simulators and their pricing and availability. METHODS: Fifteen participants completed on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hertz, Alexandria M., George, Evalyn I., Vaccaro, Christine M., Brand, Timothy C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29618918
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00081
_version_ 1783308425770303488
author Hertz, Alexandria M.
George, Evalyn I.
Vaccaro, Christine M.
Brand, Timothy C.
author_facet Hertz, Alexandria M.
George, Evalyn I.
Vaccaro, Christine M.
Brand, Timothy C.
author_sort Hertz, Alexandria M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are several different commercially available virtual-reality robotic simulators, but very little comparative data. We compared the face and content validity of 3 robotic surgery simulators and their pricing and availability. METHODS: Fifteen participants completed one task on each of the following: dV-Trainer (dVT; Mimic Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA), da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS; Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), and RobotiX Mentor (RM; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA). Participants completed previously validated face and content validity questionnaires and a demographics questionnaire. Statistical analysis was then performed on the scores. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 29.6 (range, 25–41) years. Most were surgical trainees, having performed a mean of 8.6 robotic primary surgeries. For face validity, ANOVA showed a significant difference favoring the dVSS over the dVT (P = .001), and no significant difference between the RM, dVSS, and dVT. Content validity revealed similar results, with a significant difference between the dVSS and dVT (P = .021), a trend toward a difference between the RM and dVT (P = .092), and no difference between the dVSS and RM (P = .99). CONCLUSION: All simulators demonstrated evidence of face and content validity, with significantly higher scores for the dVSS; it is also the least costly ($80,000 for the simulator), although it is frequently unavailable because of intra-operative use. The dVT and RM have similar face and content validity, are slightly more expensive, and are readily available.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5863693
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58636932018-04-04 Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators Hertz, Alexandria M. George, Evalyn I. Vaccaro, Christine M. Brand, Timothy C. JSLS Scientific Paper BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are several different commercially available virtual-reality robotic simulators, but very little comparative data. We compared the face and content validity of 3 robotic surgery simulators and their pricing and availability. METHODS: Fifteen participants completed one task on each of the following: dV-Trainer (dVT; Mimic Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA), da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS; Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), and RobotiX Mentor (RM; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA). Participants completed previously validated face and content validity questionnaires and a demographics questionnaire. Statistical analysis was then performed on the scores. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 29.6 (range, 25–41) years. Most were surgical trainees, having performed a mean of 8.6 robotic primary surgeries. For face validity, ANOVA showed a significant difference favoring the dVSS over the dVT (P = .001), and no significant difference between the RM, dVSS, and dVT. Content validity revealed similar results, with a significant difference between the dVSS and dVT (P = .021), a trend toward a difference between the RM and dVT (P = .092), and no difference between the dVSS and RM (P = .99). CONCLUSION: All simulators demonstrated evidence of face and content validity, with significantly higher scores for the dVSS; it is also the least costly ($80,000 for the simulator), although it is frequently unavailable because of intra-operative use. The dVT and RM have similar face and content validity, are slightly more expensive, and are readily available. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5863693/ /pubmed/29618918 http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00081 Text en © 2018 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Paper
Hertz, Alexandria M.
George, Evalyn I.
Vaccaro, Christine M.
Brand, Timothy C.
Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators
title Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators
title_full Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators
title_fullStr Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators
title_full_unstemmed Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators
title_short Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators
title_sort head-to-head comparison of three virtual-reality robotic surgery simulators
topic Scientific Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29618918
http://dx.doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00081
work_keys_str_mv AT hertzalexandriam headtoheadcomparisonofthreevirtualrealityroboticsurgerysimulators
AT georgeevalyni headtoheadcomparisonofthreevirtualrealityroboticsurgerysimulators
AT vaccarochristinem headtoheadcomparisonofthreevirtualrealityroboticsurgerysimulators
AT brandtimothyc headtoheadcomparisonofthreevirtualrealityroboticsurgerysimulators