4.7 Article

Simulator Fidelity Does Not Affect Training for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072557

关键词

simulator; fidelity; dry box; surgical robot; GEARS score; virtual reality simulator

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared performance using a surgical robot after training with different fidelity simulators. The results showed significant differences in time and GEARS scores among the different simulators. The conclusion is that training with simulators of varying fidelity can achieve similar performance using the da Vinci robot.
This study was undertaken to compare performance using a surgical robot after training with one of three simulators of varying fidelity. Methods: Eight novice operators and eight expert surgeons were randomly assigned to one of three simulators. Each participant performed two exercises using a simulator and then using a surgical robot. The primary outcome of this study is performance assessed by time and GEARS score. Results: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three simulators. Time to perform the suturing exercise (novices vs. experts) was significantly different for all 3 simulators. Using the da Vinci robot, peg transfer showed no significant difference between novices and experts and all participants combined (mean time novice 2.00, expert 2.21, p = 0.920). The suture exercise had significant differences in each group and all participants combined (novice 3.54, expert 1.90, p = 0.001). ANOVA showed p-Values for suturing (novice 0.523, expert 0.123) and peg transfer (novice 0.742, expert 0.131) are not significantly different. GEARS scores were different (p < 0.05) for novices and experts. Conclusion: Training with simulators of varying fidelity result in similar performance using the da Vinci robot. A dry box simulator may be as effective as a virtual reality simulator for training. Further studies are needed to validate these results.

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