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. 1Comparing a virtual reality head-mounted display to on-screen three-dimensional visualization and two-dimensional computed tomography data for training in decision making in hepatic surgery: a randomized controlled study2024 · 15 citations
  2. 2The development of tissue handling skills is sufficient and comparable after training in virtual reality or on a surgical robotic system: a prospective randomized trial2024 · 10 citations
  3. 3Medical Robotics in Bone Fracture Reduction Surgery: A Review2019 · 83 citations
  4. 4Virtual Reality Simulation Has Weak Correlation with Overall Trainee Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Performance2021 · 6 citations
  5. 5Kinematic effects of number of legs in 6-DOF UPS parallel mechanisms2017 · 16 citations