4.7 Article

Development and Validation of a Virtual Reality Simulator for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery Training

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11144145

关键词

simulation training; kinematic parameters; virtual reality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The value of kinematic data for skill assessment was investigated using a virtual reality simulator developed for liver surgery. The simulator differentiated between expert surgeons and novices, showing that simulation can be an effective way to obtain kinematic data.
The value of kinematic data for skill assessment is being investigated. This is the first virtual reality simulator developed for liver surgery. This simulator was coded in C++ using PhysX and FleX with a novel cutting algorithm and used a patient data-derived model and two instruments functioning as ultrasonic shears. The simulator was evaluated by nine expert surgeons and nine surgical novices. Each participant performed a simulated metastasectomy after training. Kinematic data were collected for the instrument position. Each participant completed a survey. The expert participants had a mean age of 47 years and 9/9 were certified in surgery. Novices had a mean age of 30 years and 0/9 were certified surgeons. The mean path length (novice 0.76 +/- 0.20 m vs. expert 0.46 +/- 0.16 m, p = 0.008), movements (138 +/- 45 vs. 84 +/- 32, p = 0.043) and time (174 +/- 44 s vs. 102 +/- 42 s, p = 0.004) were significantly different for the two participant groups. There were no significant differences in activating the instrument (107 +/- 25 vs. 109 +/- 53). Participants considered the simulator realistic (6.5/7) (face validity), appropriate for education (5/7) (content validity) with an effective interface (6/7), consistent motion (5/7) and realistic soft tissue behavior (5/7). This study showed that the simulator differentiates between experts and novices. Simulation may be an effective way to obtain kinematic data.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据