Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether any correlation exists between the performance of the Mimic® dV-Trainer (Mimic Technologies, Seattle, Wash., USA) and the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif., USA). Methods: Twelve participants were recruited, ranging from residents to consultants. We used four training tasks, consisting of ‘Pick and Place', ‘Peg Board', ‘Thread the Rings' and ‘Suture Sponge', from the software program of the Mimic dV-Trainer. The performance of the participants was recorded and measured. Additionally, we prepared the same tasks for the da Vinci Surgical System. All participants completed the tasks using the da Vinci Surgical System and were assessed according to time, the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill checklist and the global rating score for endoscopic suturing assessed by two independent blinded observers. After performing these tasks, the participants completed a questionnaire that evaluated the Mimic dV-Trainer's face and content validity. The final results for each participant for the Mimic dV-Trainer and the da Vinci Surgical System were compared. Results: All participants ranked the Mimic dV-Trainer as a realistic training platform that is useful for residency training. There was a significant relationship between the Mimic dV-Trainer and the da Vinci Surgical System in all four tasks. We verified the reliability of the assessment of the checklist and the global rating scores for endoscopic suturing assessed by the two blinded observers using Cronbach's alpha test (r = 0.803, 0.891). Conclusions: We evaluated the concurrent validity of the Mimic dV-Trainer and the da Vinci Surgical System. Our results suggest the possibility that training using the Mimic dV-Trainer may therefore be able to improve the operator's performance during live robot-assisted surgery.

Keywords:
Robotic surgery, Objective assessment, Surgical skill, Education, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill
1.
Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A: Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2007;246:771-779.
2.
Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K, Hance J, Darzi A: A competency-based virtual reality training curriculum for the acquisition of laparoscopic psychomotor skill. Am J Surg 2006;191:128-133.
3.
Debes AJ, Aggarwal R, Balasundaram I, Jacobsen MB: A tale of two trainers: virtual reality versus a video trainer for acquisition of basic laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2010;199:840-845.
4.
Calatayud D, Arora S, Aggarwal R, Kruglikova I, Schulze S, Funch-Jensen P, Grantcharov T: Warm-up in a virtual reality environment improves performance in the operating room. Ann Surg 2010;251:1181-1185.
5.
Crochet P, Aggarwal R, Dubb SS, Ziprin P, Rajaretnam N, Grantcharov T, Ericsson KA, Darzi A: Deliberate practice on a virtual reality laparoscopic simulator enhances the quality of surgical technical skills. Ann Surg 2011;253:1216-1222.
6.
Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Bello F, Chang A, Darzi A: Bimodal assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills: construct and concurrent validity. Surg Endosc 2004;18:1608-1612.
7.
Szabo Z, Hunter J, Berci G, Sackier J, Cuschieri A: Analysis of surgical movements during suturing in laparoscopy. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 1994;2:55-61.
8.
Reznick RK: Teaching and testing technical skills. Am J Surg 1993;165:358-361.
9.
Faulkner H, Regehr G, Martin J, Reznick R: Validation of an objective structured assessment of technical skill for surgical residents. Acad Med 1996;71:1363-1365.
10.
Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M: Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997;84:273-278.
11.
Anastakis DJ, Regehr G, Reznick RK, Cusimano M, Murnaghan J, Brown M, Hutchison C: Assessment of technical skills transfer from the bench training model to the human model. Am J Surg 1999;177:167-170.
12.
Darzi A, Datta V, Mackay S: The challenge of objective assessment of surgical skill. Am J Surg 2001;181:484-486.
13.
Datta V, Chang A, Mackay S, Darzi A: The relationship between motion analysis and surgical technical assessments. Am J Surg 2002;184:70-73.
14.
Datta V, Mandalia M, Mackay S, Chang A, Cheshire N, Darzi A: Relationship between skill and outcome in the laboratory-based model. Surgery 2002;131:318-323.
15.
Bann S, Datta V, Khan M, Darzi A: The surgical error examination is a novel method for objective technical knowledge assessment. Am J Surg 2003;185:507-511.
16.
Egi H, Okajima M, Yoshimitsu M, Ikeda S, Miyata Y, Masugami H, Kawahara T, Kurita Y, Kaneko M, Asahara T: Objective assessment of endoscopic surgical skills by analyzing direction-dependent dexterity using the Hiroshima University Endoscopic Surgical Assessment Device (HUESAD). Surg Today 2008;38:705-710.
17.
Egi H, Okajima M, Kawahara T, Yoshimitsu M, Sumitani D, Tokunaga M, Takeda H, Itamoto T, Ohdan H: Scientific assessment of endoscopic surgical skills. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2010;19:30-34.
18.
Tokunaga M, Egi H, Hattori M, Yoshimitsu M, Sumitani D, Kawahara T, Okajima M, Ohdan H: Approaching time is important for assessment of endoscopic surgical skills. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2012;21:142-149.
19.
Lendvay TS, Casale P, Sweet R, Peters C: Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J Robot Surg 2008;2:145-149.
20.
Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y, Sundaram CP: Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 2009;23:503-508.
21.
Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, Libertino JA, Moinzadeh A: Face, content, and construct validity of dv-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 2009;73:1288-1292.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.