Foell Kirsten, Furse Alexander, Honey R John D'A, Pace Kenneth T, Lee Jason Y
Division of Urology, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, 61 Queen St E, Suite 9103, Toronto, ON, M5C 2T2, Canada.
Minogue Medical Inc, Montreal, Canada.
J Robot Surg. 2013 Dec;7(4):365-9. doi: 10.1007/s11701-013-0403-6. Epub 2013 Apr 21.
Despite the increased dexterity and precision of robotic surgery, like any new surgical technology it is still associated with a learning curve that can impact patient outcomes. The use of surgical simulators outside of the operating room, in a low-stakes environment, has been shown to shorten such learning curves. We present a multidisciplinary validation study of a robotic surgery simulator, the da Vinci(®) Skills Simulator (dVSS). Trainees and attending faculty from the University of Toronto, Departments of Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology (ObGyn), were recruited to participate in this validation study. All participants completed seven different exercises on the dVSS (Camera Targeting 1, Peg Board 1, Peg Board 2, Ring Walk 2, Match Board 1, Thread the Rings, Suture Sponge 1) and, using the da Vinci S Robot (dVR), completed two standardized skill tasks (Ring Transfer, Needle Passing). Participants were categorized as novice robotic surgeon (NRS) and experienced robotic surgeon (ERS) based on the number of robotic cases performed. Statistical analysis was conducted using independent T test and non-parametric Spearman's correlation. A total of 53 participants were included in the study: 27 urology, 13 ObGyn, and 13 thoracic surgery (Table 1). Most participants (89 %) either had no prior console experience or had performed <10 robotic cases, while one (2 %) had performed 10-20 cases and five (9 %) had performed ≥20 robotic surgeries. The dVSS demonstrated excellent face and content validity and 97 and 86 % of participants agreed that it was useful for residency training and post-graduate training, respectively. The dVSS also demonstrated construct validity, with NRS performing significantly worse than ERS on most exercises with respect to overall score, time to completion, economy of motion, and errors (Table 2). Excellent concurrent validity was also demonstrated as dVSS scores for most exercises correlated with performance of the two standardized skill tasks using the dVR (Table 3). This multidisciplinary validation study of the dVSS provides excellent face, content, construct, and concurrent validity evidence, which supports its integrated use in a comprehensive robotic surgery training program, both as an educational tool and potentially as an assessment device. Table 1 dVSS validation study participant demographic information Survey question Response Number (%) Gender Male 36 (67.9) Female 17 (32.1) Handedness Right-hand dominant 45 (84.9) Left-hand dominant 4 (7.5) Ambidextrous 3 (5.7) Level of training Junior Resident (R1-R3) 17 (32.1) Senior Resident (R4-R5) 12 (22.6) Fellow 16 (30.2) Staff Surgeon 8 (15.1) Specialty Urology 27 (50.9) ObGyn 13 (24.5) Thoracics 13 (24.5) Previous MIS experience (laparoscopic or thoracoscopic) None/minimal 17 (32.1) Moderate 11 (20.8) Significant 18 (34.0) Fellowship-trained in MIS 4 (7.5) Previous robotic surgery experience None 32 (60.4) Yes 21 (39.6) If yes, number of operative cases as surgical assistant 0 cases 33 (62.3) <10 cases 9 (17.0) 10-20 cases 3 (5.7) >20 cases 8 (9.4) If yes, number of operative cases at robotic console for at least 30 min 0 cases 41 (77.4) <10 cases 6 (11.3) 10-20 cases 1 (1.9) >20 cases 5 (9.4) MIS minimally invasive surgery Table 2 dVSS construct validity evidence dVSS exercise All subjects' overall score (%, mean ± SD) Novice robotic surgeon overall score (%, mean ± SD) Expert robotic surgeon overall score (%, mean ± SD) p value Camera Targeting 1 69.943 ± 21.7489 67.170 ± 21.5258 91.667 ± 4.2269 0.008 Peg Board 1 78.596 ± 11.9824 76.913 ± 11.6616 91.500 ± 3.8341 0.004 Match Board 1 69.880 ± 17.7691 67.864 ± 17.9075 84.667 ± 6.1860 0.028 Thread the Rings 74.152 ± 16.4289 71.825 ± 16.2605 89.667 ± 5.8878 0.011 Suture Sponge 1 74.787 ± 14.3086 73.171 ± 14.5067 85.833 ± 5.6716 0.042 Ring Walk 2 75.098 ± 20.0861 73.333 ± 20.1099 88.333 ± 15.4100 0.086 Peg Board 2 84.308 ± 11.7633 83.283 ± 12.0861 92.167 ± 3.6009 0.082 Table 3 dVSS concurrent validity evidence NP time NP errors RT time RT errors Camera Targeting 1 overall score 0.471 (0.001) 0.083 (0.575) 0.291 (0.045) 0.061 (0.685) Peg Board 1 overall score 0.486 (0.001) 0.141 (0.344) 0.325 (0.026) 0.088 (0.555) Match Board 1 overall score 0.543 (<0.001) 0.096 (0.530) 0.295 (0.050) 0.215 (0.162) Thread the Rings overall score 0.432 (0.005) 0.231 (0.147) 0.533 (<0.001) 0.163 (0.310) Suture Sponge 1 overall score 0.592 (<0.001) 0.105 (0.509) 0.437 (0.004) 0.015 (0.925) Ring Walk 2 overall score 0.454 (0.002) 0.179 (0.234) 0.399 (0.006) 0.022 (0.884) Peg Board 2 overall score 0.675 (<0.001) 0.058 (0.696) 0.073 (0.626) 0.045 (0.762) Subjects' overall score for each dVSS exercise is correlated with the time to complete (time) and number of errors (errors) for the Needle Passing (NP) and Ring Transfer (RT) tasks performed using the dVR. Data is expressed as Pearson correlation coefficient (p value).
尽管机器人手术的灵活性和精确性有所提高,但与任何新的手术技术一样,它仍然存在学习曲线,这可能会影响患者的治疗效果。在手术室之外的低风险环境中使用手术模拟器已被证明可以缩短这种学习曲线。我们展示了一项针对机器人手术模拟器——达芬奇(®)技能模拟器(dVSS)的多学科验证研究。来自多伦多大学外科、妇产科(ObGyn)的学员和主治教员被招募参与这项验证研究。所有参与者在dVSS上完成了七个不同的练习(摄像头定位1、钉板1、钉板2、环形行走2、匹配板1、穿环、缝合海绵1),并使用达芬奇S机器人(dVR)完成了两项标准化技能任务(环形转移、持针穿刺)。根据机器人手术病例数,参与者被分为新手机器人外科医生(NRS)和经验丰富的机器人外科医生(ERS)。使用独立T检验和非参数斯皮尔曼相关性进行统计分析。该研究共纳入53名参与者:27名泌尿外科医生、13名妇产科医生和13名胸外科医生(表1)。大多数参与者(89%)要么之前没有控制台操作经验,要么进行的机器人手术病例数少于10例,而1名(2%)进行了10 - 20例手术,5名(9%)进行了≥20例机器人手术。dVSS具有出色的表面效度和内容效度,分别有97%和86%的参与者认为它对住院医师培训和研究生培训有用。dVSS还展示了结构效度,在大多数练习中,新手机器人外科医生在总体得分、完成时间、动作经济性和错误方面的表现明显比经验丰富的机器人外科医生差(表2)。同时也展示了出色的同时效度,因为大多数练习的dVSS得分与使用dVR进行的两项标准化技能任务的表现相关(表3)。这项对dVSS的多学科验证研究提供了出色的表面、内容、结构和同时效度证据,支持其作为教育工具以及潜在的评估设备,在全面的机器人手术培训计划中综合使用。表1 dVSS验证研究参与者人口统计学信息调查问题回答人数(%)性别男36(67.9)女17(32.1)用手习惯右手主导45(84.9)左手主导4(7.5)双手灵活3(5.7)培训水平初级住院医师(R1 - R3)17(32.1)高级住院医师(R4 - R5)12(22.6)研究员16(30.2)主治医生8(15.1)专业泌尿外科27(50.9)妇产科13(24.5)胸外科13(24.5)既往微创外科经验(腹腔镜或胸腔镜)无/极少17(32.1)中等11(20.8)丰富18(34.0)接受过微创外科 fellowship培训4(7.5)既往机器人手术经验无32(60.4)有21(39.6)如果有,作为手术助手的手术病例数0例33(62.3)<10例9(17.0)10 - 20例3(5.7)>20例8(9.4)如果有,在机器人控制台上进行至少30分钟手术的病例数0例41(77.4)<10例6(11.3)10 - 20例1(1.9)>20例5(9.4)MIS微创外科表2 dVSS结构效度证据dVSS练习所有受试者总体得分(%,平均值±标准差)新手机器人外科医生总体得分(%,平均值±标准差)经验丰富的机器人外科医生总体得分(%,平均值±标准差)p值摄像头定位169.943±21.748967.170±21.525891.667±4.22690.008钉板178.596±11.982476.913±11.661691.500±3.83410.004匹配板169.880±17.769167.864±17.907584.66