Hardware interface for haptic feedback in laparoscopic surgery simulators

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery requires intensive training due to challenges such as loss of haptic feedback and depth perception. Traditional training methods include box trainers (BT), which offer realistic haptic feedback but lack objective performance assessment, and virtual reality (VR) simulators, which provide automated feedback but lack haptic feedback. This review, conducted at the Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University, examines the learning outcomes of VRsimulators with haptic feedback compared to BT. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines from December 2023 to April 2024. Research databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VR simulators with haptic feedback to BT in training medical students. Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and four were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were learning curves and learning effectswhile secondary outcomes included skill transfer to a surgical environment. The review analysed data from 125 participants across the studies. Results indicated that BTs demonstrated a superior learning curve, with participants achieving proficiency faster than those using VR. Both simulators showed significant learning effects; however, BTs resulted in greater improvements across more performance parameters. Regarding skill transfer to surgical environments, there was no significant difference between the two groups, suggesting both approaches effectively support surgical skill transfer. Overall, BT has a more effective learning curve and marginally better performance in skill acquisition. While VR with haptic feedback offers enhanced realism, it does not fully replicate the natural haptic feedback provided by BT. Further studies are needed to improve VR haptic feedback and its integration into training programs to enhance learning outcomes.

Extended-Reality Technologies: An Overview of Emerging Applications in Medical Education and Clinical Care.

Interaction with computers and virtual environments is almost totally based on visual displays, along with auditory feedback. Somesthetic feedback, a necessary feature in all other skilled activity, is usually absent. Haptic interfaces attempt to solve this problem by coupling the human sense of touch with a computer-generated world. Haptics is the science of applying tactile sensation and kinesthesis to interaction with computer applications. By using special input/output devices (joysticks, data gloves, or other devices), users can receive feedback from computer applications in the form of sensations felt in the hand or other parts of the body. These sensations include forces, vibrations and/or motions. The aim of this tutorial is to provide participants with an overview of the technical aspects of haptic feedback and provide information about different haptic feedback devices and applications of these devices using virtual reality and computer simulations for motor rehabilitation, learning and teleoperation. The tutorial will include opportunities for hands-on practice with haptic devices and different environments. The haptic devices available for hands-on practice will include the Novint Falcon, and the SensAble OMNI devices.

Automatic performance assessment in Virtual Reality medical simulators: A model based on procedure trajectories and machine learning

Can virtual reality simulation be used for advanced bariatric surgical training?

Introduction Currently there is little evidence on the role of virtual reality (VR) simulators for orthopaedic trauma simulation due to lack of validated commercially available platforms. We determined face validity and acceptability of the only VR haptic-enabled DHS fixation simulator as a potential training tool. Methods 52 medical students (naive to both DHS fixation and VR simulation) were voluntarily recruited and electronically randomised to two groups. Group 1 (training) performed five attempts whilst Group 2 (control) performed one attempt. After a week, both groups repeated the same number of attempts. Participants then filled in an eight-item questionnaire using a seven-point Likert scale (1–7). The mean score and Mann-Whitney U-test for significance (p Results No significant difference was found between both cohorts in all questionnaire responses, thus data was pooled and analysed as a unified cohort. Participants agreed that visual appearance of the external surgical field was realistic (mean score 4.8 [68.6%]) and that the haptic feedback was realistic (mean score 5.7 [81.4%]). The simulator was moderately accepted as an unthreatening learning environment (mean score 6.4 [91.4%]), subjects recognised the VR DHS simulator as a useful training tool (mean score 6.3 [90.0%]) and would recommend this modality to colleagues (mean score 6.3 [90%]). Moreover, participants strongly agreed that they enjoyed using the simulator (mean score 6.5 [92.9%]), that they would like to practise on a simulator before operating on a patient (mean score 6.5 [92.9%]) and they would like to train further on the simulator (mean score 6.5 [92.9%]). Conclusions The simulator was well received and participants moderately agreed that the VR DHS simulator would be a useful training tool and would recommend it to their colleagues. There was an overwhelming and unanimous demand among medical students and future surgeons for VR simulation technology in formal orthopaedic training. References Blyth P, Anderson IA, Stott NS. Virtual reality simulators in orthopaedic surgery: what do the surgeons think? J Surg Res 2006;131(1):133–9; discussion 140–2. Froelich JM, Milbrandt JC, Novicoff WM, et al . Surgical simulators and hip fractures: a role in residency training? J Surg Educ 2011;68(4):298–302.

Simulation is a key component of surgical training, enabling trainees to develop their skills in a safe environment. With simulators broadly grouped into physical models and virtual-reality (VR) simulators, it is important to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the simulator types in terms of validity as well as cost. The review aims to compare the benefits and drawbacks of novel VR and physical simulators within the broader themes of endourology, laparoscopic and robotic operations, and other urological procedures. Key benefits of bench models include their comparatively lower cost, easy access and provision of haptic feedback, whereas VR simulators are generally self-sufficient, reusable and enable skills of haemostasis to be practised. The advent of perfused 3D printed simulators across a range of urological procedures may replace cadavers as the traditional gold-standard simulation modality. Although possessing differing strengths and downsides, VR and physical simulators when used together can have an additive effect due to skill transferability across the platforms. Further comparative studies are required to directly quantify the differences between physical models and VR simulators in terms of performance metrics and cost-effectiveness. There is lack of validated VR simulators for open and reconstructive procedures.

The objective of this paper is to describe the current status, advantages, and disadvantages of Virtual Reality simulators as tools for training and assessment of laparoscopic skills. This is a review of publications about Virtual Reality simulators in laparoscopic training and assessment. Information was obtained through author’s experience and by search of MEDLINE using the keywords Virtual Reality simulation, training, assessment and laparoscopic surgery. The references cited in these studies were reviewed to find out whether any other trials fitted the selection criteria. There are several validated Virtual Reality systems that allow the transfer of skills from the virtual environment to the operating room and objective assessment of operative skills in laparoscopic surgery. In conclusion, Virtual Reality simulators are valid and objective tools in surgical education. Several systems are currently considered sufficiently validated and ready to be implemented in comprehensive educational curricula in minimally invasive surgery.

This study was conducted to validate the role of virtual reality computer simulation as an objective method for assessing laparoscopic technical skills. The authors aimed to investigate whether performance in the operating room, assessed using a modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS), correlated with the performance parameters registered by a virtual reality laparoscopic trainer (LapSim). The study enrolled 10 surgical residents (3 females) with a median of 5.5 years (range, 2-6 years) since graduation who had similar limited experience in laparoscopic surgery (median, 5; range, 1-16 laparoscopic cholecystectomies). All the participants performed three repetitions of seven basic skills tasks on the LapSim laparoscopic trainer and one laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the operating room. The operating room procedure was video recorded and blindly assessed by two independent observers using a modified OSATS rating scale. Assessment in the operating room was based on three parameters: time used, error score, and economy of motion score. During the tasks on the LapSim, time, error (tissue damage and millimeters of tissue damage [tasks 2-6], error score [incomplete target areas, badly placed clips, and dropped clips [task 7]), and economy of movement parameters (path length and angular path) were registered. The correlation between time, economy, and error parameters during the simulated tasks and the operating room procedure was statistically assessed using Spearman's test. Significant correlations were demonstrated between the time used to complete the operating room procedure and time used for task 7 (r (s) = 0.74; p = 0.015). The error score demonstrated during the laparoscopic cholecystectomy correlated well with the tissue damage in three of the seven tasks (p < 0.05), the millimeters of tissue damage during two of the tasks, and the error score in task 7 (r (s) = 0.67; p = 0.034). Furthermore, statistically significant correlations were observed between the economy of motion score from the operative procedure and LapSim's economy parameters (path length and angular path in six of the tasks) (p < 0.05). The current study demonstrated significant correlations between operative performance in the operating room (assessed using a well-validated rating scale) and psychomotor performance in virtual environment assessed by a computer simulator. This provides strong evidence for the validity of the simulator system as an objective tool for assessing laparoscopic skills. Virtual reality simulation can be used in practice to assess technical skills relevant for minimally invasive surgery.

Changes to Training Practices during a Pandemic - The Experience of the Irish National Trauma & Orthopaedic Training Scheme

To inform surgeons about the practical issues to be considered for successful integration of virtual reality simulation into a surgical training program. The learning and practice of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) makes unique demands on surgical training programs. A decade ago Satava proposed virtual reality (VR) surgical simulation as a solution for this problem. Only recently have robust scientific studies supported that vision A review of the surgical education, human-factor, and psychology literature to identify important factors which will impinge on the successful integration of VR training into a surgical training program. VR is more likely to be successful if it is systematically integrated into a well-thought-out education and training program which objectively assesses technical skills improvement proximate to the learning experience. Validated performance metrics should be relevant to the surgical task being trained but in general will require trainees to reach an objectively determined proficiency criterion, based on tightly defined metrics and perform at this level consistently. VR training is more likely to be successful if the training schedule takes place on an interval basis rather than massed into a short period of extensive practice. High-fidelity VR simulations will confer the greatest skills transfer to the in vivo surgical situation, but less expensive VR trainers will also lead to considerably improved skills generalizations. VR for improved performance of MIS is now a reality. However, VR is only a training tool that must be thoughtfully introduced into a surgical training curriculum for it to successfully improve surgical technical skills.

BackgroundConstruct validity of virtual laparoscopic simulators for basic laparoscopic skills has been proposed; however, it is not yet clear whether the simulators can identify the actual experience of surgeons in more complex procedures such as laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. This study tested the ability of the Lap Mentor simulator to recognize the experience in advanced laparoscopic procedures and to assess its role in the certification of bariatric surgeons.MethodsTwenty surgeons were divided into two groups according to their experience in laparoscopic and bariatric surgery. The general group included 10 general surgeons performing between 75 and 100 nonbariatric laparoscopic procedures. The bariatric group included 10 bariatric surgeons performing between 50 and 100 laparoscopic bariatric procedures. Participants were tested on the simulator in one basic task (task 1: eye–hand coordination) and in two tasks of the gastric bypass module (task 2: creation of the gastric pouch; task 3: gastrojejunal anastomosis).ResultsComparing the groups, no significant differences were found in task 1. Analyzing the results from the gastric bypass module (bariatric vs. general), in task 2, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the median volume of the gastric pouch (21 vs. 48 cm3), in the percentage of fundus included in the pouch (8.4 vs. 29.4 %), in the complete dissection at the angle of His (10 vs. 3), and in safety parameters. In task 3, significant differences were found in the size and position of enterotomies.ConclusionsThe Lap Mentor may be proposed as a certification tool for bariatric surgeons because it also recognizes their specific skills in the technical details of the procedure that affect long-term results. Furthermore, the possibility of analyzing the performance in detail can help define areas where the surgeon is lacking. These findings indicate a potential role of the Lap Mentor in tailoring the training to maximize improvement.

Current surgical training: simultaneous training in open and laparoscopic surgery

Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known. To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012. We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group. Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

BackgroundExtended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these new educational modalities should measure relevant outcomes using outcome measurement tools with validity evidence.ObjectiveOur aim is to determine the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments, and the use of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of VR, AR, and MR in medical student education.MethodsWe conducted a systematic mapping review. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to April 2020, and 2 reviewers screened the citations and extracted data independently from the included studies. We report our findings in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.ResultsOf the 126 retrieved RCTs, 115 (91.3%) were on VR and 11 (8.7%) were on AR. No RCT on MR in medical student education was found. Of the 115 studies on VR, 64 (55.6%) were on VR simulators, 30 (26.1%) on screen-based VR, 9 (7.8%) on VR patient simulations, and 12 (10.4%) on VR serious games. Most studies reported only a single outcome and immediate postintervention assessment data. Skills outcome was the most common outcome reported in studies on VR simulators (97%), VR patient simulations (100%), and AR (73%). Knowledge was the most common outcome reported in studies on screen-based VR (80%) and VR serious games (58%). Less common outcomes included participants’ attitudes, satisfaction, cognitive or mental load, learning efficacy, engagement or self-efficacy beliefs, emotional state, competency developed, and patient outcomes. At least one form of validity evidence was found in approximately half of the studies on VR simulators (55%), VR patient simulations (56%), VR serious games (58%), and AR (55%) and in a quarter of the studies on screen-based VR (27%). Most studies used assessment methods that were implemented in a nondigital format, such as paper-based written exercises or in-person assessments where examiners observed performance (72%).ConclusionsRCTs on VR and AR in medical education report a restricted range of outcomes, mostly skills and knowledge. The studies largely report immediate postintervention outcome data and use assessment methods that are in a nondigital format. Future RCTs should include a broader set of outcomes, report on the validity evidence of the measurement instruments used, and explore the use of assessments that are implemented digitally.