Face, Content and Construct Validity of a Novel Robotic Surgery Simulator

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Sep 2011Face, Content and Construct Validity of a Novel Robotic Surgery Simulator Andrew J. Hung, Pascal Zehnder, Mukul B. Patil, Jie Cai, Casey K. Ng, Monish Aron, Inderbir S. Gill, and Mihir M. Desai Andrew J. HungAndrew J. Hung, Pascal ZehnderPascal Zehnder, Mukul B. PatilMukul B. Patil, Jie CaiJie Cai, Casey K. NgCasey K. Ng, Monish AronMonish Aron, Inderbir S. GillInderbir S. Gill, and Mihir M. DesaiMihir M. Desai View All Author Informationhttps: //doi. org/10. 1016/j. juro. 2011. 04. 064AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We evaluated the face, content and construct validity of the novel da Vinci® Skills Simulator™ using the da Vinci Si™ Surgeon Console as the surgeon interface. Materials and Methods: We evaluated a novel robotic surgical simulator for robotic surgery using the da Vinci Si Surgeon Console and Mimic™ virtual reality. Subjects were categorized as novice—no surgical training, intermediate—surgical training with fewer than 100 robotic cases or expert—100 or more primary surgeon robotic cases. Each participant completed 10 virtual reality exercises with 3 repetitions and a questionnaire with a 1 to 10 visual analog scale to assess simulator realism (face validity) and training usefulness (content validity). The simulator recorded performance based on specific metrics. The performance of experts, intermediates and novices was compared (construct validity) using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: We studied 16 novices, 32 intermediates with a median surgical experience of 6 years (range 1 to 37) and a median of 0 robotic cases (range 0 to 50), and 15 experts with a median of 315 robotic cases (range 100 to 800). Participants rated the virtual reality and console experience as very realistic (median visual analog scale score 8/10) while expert surgeons rated the simulator as a very useful training tool for residents (10/10) and fellows (9/10). Experts outperformed intermediates and novices in almost all metrics (median overall score 88. 3% vs 75. 6% and 62. 1%, respectively, between group p <0. 001). Conclusions: We confirmed the face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic skill simulator that uses the da Vinci Si Surgeon Console. Although it is currently limited to basic skill training, this device is likely to influence robotic surgical training across specialties. References 1: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? . Urology2005; 66: 105. Google Scholar 2: Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology2002; 60: 864. Google Scholar 3: The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology2008; 72: 1068. Google Scholar 4: The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int.: 2010. Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 5: Robotic radical prostatectomy: operative technique, outcomes, and learning curve. JSLS2007; 11: 1. Google Scholar 6: From proficiency to expert, when does the learning curve for robotic-assisted prostatectomies plateau? : The Columbia University experience. World J Urol2007; 25: 105. Google Scholar 7: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol2003; 169: 2289. Link, Google Scholar 8: Safety and peri-operative outcomes during learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons versus experienced open radical prostatectomy surgeons incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol2010; 24: 1665. Google Scholar 9: Effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy2010; 42: 1049. Google Scholar 10: Utility of a transesophageal echocardiographic simulator as a teaching tool. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2010; 25: 212. Google Scholar 11: External validation of a virtual reality transurethral resection of the prostate simulator. J Urol2010; 184: 2018. Link, Google Scholar 12: Impact of virtual reality-simulated training on urology residents' performance of transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol2010; 24: 1521. Google Scholar 13: Does training laparoscopic skills in a virtual reality simulator improve surgical performance? . J Endourol2010; 24: 1845. Google Scholar 14: The LapSim virtual reality simulator: promising but not yet proven. Surg Endosc2011; 25: 343. Google Scholar 15: Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol2009; 23: 503. Google Scholar 16: Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology2009; 73: 1288. Google Scholar 17: Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? . J Endourol2010; 24: 467. Google Scholar 18 Intuitive Surgical 2009 Annual Report. https: //materials. proxyvote. com/Approved/46120E/20100222/AR₅3320/HTML2/default. htm. Google Scholar 19: Robotic radical prostatectomy: long-term outcomes. Curr Opin Urol2008; 18: 173. Google Scholar 20: Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology2010; 76: 357. Google Scholar 21: Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int2011; 107: 1130. Google Scholar University of Southern California Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byHung A, Shah S, Dalag L, Shin D and Gill I (2015) Development and Validation of a Novel Robotic Procedure Specific Simulation Platform: Partial NephrectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 2, (520-526), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2015. Hung A, Patil M, Zehnder P, Cai J, Ng C, Aron M, Gill I and Desai M (2011) Concurrent and Predictive Validation of a Novel Robotic Surgery Simulator: A Prospective, Randomized StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 2, (630-637), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012. Volume 186 Issue 3 September 2011 Page: 1019-1025 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Keywordsprostateprostatectomyroboticscomputer simulationsurgical proceduresminimally invasiveAcknowledgmentsIntuitive Surgical provided the simulator prototype for beta testing. The metrics scoring algorithm was developed at Mimic Technologies, Seattle, Washington. Metrics Author Information Andrew J. Hung More articles by this author Pascal Zehnder More articles by this author Mukul B. Patil More articles by this author Jie Cai More articles by this author Casey K. Ng More articles by this author Monish Aron More articles by this author Inderbir S. Gill Financial interest and/or other relationship with Hansen Medical. More articles by this author Mihir M. Desai Financial interest and/or other relationship with Hansen Medical and Baxter. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading. . .