PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2026Journal of Robotics0 citationsOpen Access

Haptic Surgical Simulator for Robot‐Assisted Femur‐Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

View Full Paper
FAFayez AlruwailiSRSara RagabMBMichael Bickford

Key Points

  • This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a haptic surgical simulator for training in robot-assisted femur-fracture surgery.
  • Randomized trial with 20 medical students assigned to VR or non-VR groups.
  • Participants underwent training with a haptic, fluoroscopy-guided simulator (Robossis surgical simulator).
  • Outcome measures included metrics of time, accuracy, path length, and collisions post-training.
  • Both groups showed significant improvements in training metrics (p < 0.05).
  • On-screen and HMD-VR groups improved in accuracy by 77% and 52%, respectively; path length reduced by 44% and 46%.
  • Post-training, translational accuracy difference was significant for the on-screen group (p = 0.041).

Abstract

Background Effective preparation is essential before deploying robot‐assisted surgery (RAS) in the operating room (OR). Methods In this study, we present the Robossis surgical simulator (RSS), a haptic, fluoroscopy‐guided simulator designed for femur‐fracture surgery. Twenty medical students were randomly assigned to either the virtual reality (VR) head‐mounted display (HMD) or non‐VR (i.e., on‐screen) groups. Results Both groups showed significant pre‐to‐post gains across metrics ( p < 0.05), with shorter times (on‐screen ≈ −39%, HMD‐VR ≈ −40%), improved accuracy (on‐screen ≈ −77%; HMD‐VR ≈ −52%), reduced path length (on‐screen ≈ −44%; HMD‐VR ≈ −46%), and fewer collisions (on‐screen ≈ −55%; HMD‐VR ≈ −63%). Workload decreased for most domains in both groups; physical demand did not change significantly in the on‐screen group ( p = 0.1821). In the between‐group post‐training, the only difference was in translational accuracy ( p = 0.041) for the on‐screen group. Conclusion These findings highlight the learning curve associated with VR training for RAS.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Alruwaili et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a095b5d7880e6d24efe11f5https://doi.org/10.1155/joro/3204663
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Randomized controlled trial of the CMR immersive virtual reality (IVR) headset training compared to e-learning for operating room configuration of the CMR versius robot2024 · 9 citations
  2. 2Kinematic effects of number of legs in 6-DOF UPS parallel mechanisms2017 · 16 citations
  3. 3Torsional malalignment, how much significant in the trochanteric fractures?2015 · 30 citations
  4. 4Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer2018 · 103 citations
  5. 5Medical Robotics in Bone Fracture Reduction Surgery: A Review2019 · 83 citations