Evaluation of different approaches to define expert benchmark scores for new robotic training simulators based on the Medtronic HUGO™ RAS surgical robot experience.
Benchmarking simulation passing scores
Proficiency-based training
Robotic surgery
Surgical education
Virtual simulation
Journal
Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Mar 2024
07 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
09
01
2024
accepted:
10
02
2024
medline:
7
3
2024
pubmed:
7
3
2024
entrez:
7
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
New robot-assisted surgery platforms being developed will be required to have proficiency-based simulation training available. Scoring methodologies and performance feedback for trainees are currently not consistent across all robotic simulator platforms. Also, there are virtually no prior publications on how VR simulation passing benchmarks have been established. This paper compares methods evaluated to determine the proficiency-based scoring thresholds (a.k.a. benchmarks) for the new Medtronic Hugo™ RAS robotic simulator. Nine experienced robotic surgeons from multiple disciplines performed the 49 skills exercises 5 times each. The data were analyzed in 3 different ways: (1) include all data collected, (2) exclude first sessions, (3) exclude outliers. Eliminating the first session discounts becoming familiar with the exercise. Discounting outliers allows removal of potentially erroneous data that may be due to technical issues, unexpected distractions, etc. Outliers were identified using a common statistical technique involving the interquartile range of the data. Using each method above, mean and standard deviations were calculated, and the benchmark was set at a value of 1 standard deviation above the mean. In comparison to including all the data, when outliers are excluded, fewer data points are removed than just excluding first sessions, and the metric benchmarks are made more difficult by an average of 11%. When first sessions are excluded, the metric benchmarks are made easier by an average of about 2%. In comparison with benchmarks calculated using all data points, excluding outliers resulted in the biggest change making the benchmarks more challenging. We determined that this method provided the best representation of the data. These benchmarks should be validated with future clinical training studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38451376
doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01868-z
pii: 10.1007/s11701-024-01868-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
113Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Seymour NE (2008) Simulation improves operating room performance. World J Surg 32(2):182–188
doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9307-9
Thinggaard E, Bjerrum F, Strandbygaard J, Gögenur I, Konge L (2016) Ensuring competency of novice laparoscopic surgeons-exploring standard setting methods and their consequences. J Surg Educ 73(6):986–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.05.008 . (Epub 2016 Jun 17)
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.05.008
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/surgery-devices/computer-assisted-surgical-systems
Raison N, Ahmed K, Fossati N, Buffi N, Mottrie A, Dasgupta P, Van Der Poel H (2017) Competency based training in robotic surgery: benchmark scores for virtual reality robotic simulation. BJU Int 119(5):804–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13710 . (Epub 2016 Dec 9)
doi: 10.1111/bju.13710
Gallagher AG (2012) Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education: what it is and how to do it. Ulster Med J 81(3):107–113
Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE, Athanasiou T (1986) Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free Press
Carraccio CL, Benson BJ, Nixon LJ, Derstine PL (2008) From the educational bench to the clinical bedside: translating the dreyfus developmental model to the learning of clinical skills. Acad Med 83(8):761–767. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31817eb632
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31817eb632
Wohlrab K, Jelovsek JE, Myers D (2017) Incorporating simulation into gynecologic surgical training. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217(5):522–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.017 . (Epub 2017 May 13)
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.017
Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S (2012) Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da vinci trainer(™) and the da vinci surgical skills simulator(™) using the mimic(™)software for urologic robotic surgical education. J Endourol 26(12):1629–1634
doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0328
Kenney P, Wszolek M, Gould J, Libertino J, Moinzadeh A (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. J Urol 73(6):1288–1292
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.044
Salmond SE, RN (2007) Taking the mystery out of research. Box and Whisker Plots. Orthop Nursing 26(1):33
doi: 10.1097/00006416-200701000-00010
Simmonds C, Brentnall M, Lenihan J (2021) Evaluation of a novel universal robotic surgery virtual reality simulation proficiency index that will allow comparisons of users across any virtual reality simulation curriculum. Surg Endosc 35(10):5867–5875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08609-5 . (Epub 2021 Jul 6)
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08609-5
Moglia A, Ferrari V, Morelli L, Melfi F, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2014) Distribution of innate ability for surgery amongst medical students assessed by an advanced virtual reality surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 28(6):1830–1837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3393-6 . (Epub 2014 Jan 18)
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3393-6
Nahm FS (2022) Receiver operating characteristic curve: overview and practical use for clinicians. Korean J Anesthesiol 75(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.21209 . (Epub 2022 Jan 18)
doi: 10.4097/kja.21209
Watkinson W, Raison N, Abe T, Harrison P, Khan S, Van der Poel H, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2018) Establishing objective benchmarks in robotic virtual reality simulation at the level of a competent surgeon using the RobotiX Mentor simulator. Postgrad Med J 94(1111):270–277. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135351 . (Epub 2018 Mar 6)
doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135351
Bilgic E, Watanabe Y, Nepomnayshy D, et. Al. (2017) Multicenter proficiency benchmarks for advanced laparoscopic suturing tasks. Am J Surg 213(2):217–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.am.suirg.2016.07.033
doi: 10.1016/j.am.suirg.2016.07.033
Ritter EM, Scott DJ (2007) Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 14:107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350607302329
doi: 10.1177/1553350607302329
Nagaraj MB, AbdelFattah KR, Scott DJ, Farr DE (2022) Creating a proficiency-based remote laparoscopic skills curriculum for the COVID-19 Era. J Surg Educ 79(1):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.06.020 . (Epub 2021 Jul 3)
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.06.020
Zendejas B, Ruparel RK, Cook DA (2016) Validity evidence for the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program as an assessment tool: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 30(2):512–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4233-7 . (Epub 2015 Jun 20)
doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4233-7
Lerner V, DeStephano C, Ulrich A, Han ES, LeClaire E, Chen CCG (2021) A systematic review of validity evidence for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery examination in gynecology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(7):1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.04.010 . (Epub 2021 Apr 22)
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.04.010
Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C (2014) Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20(1):48–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000045.PMID:24368489.FemPelMedReconSurg
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000045.PMID:24368489.FemPelMedReconSurg
Boal MWE, Anastasiou D, Tesfai F, Ghamrawi W, Mazomenos E, Curtis N, Collins JW, Sridhar A, Kelly J, Stoyanov D, Francis NK (2024) Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad331
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad331