TY - JOUR
T1 - dV-Trainer vs. da Vinci Simulator
T2 - Comparison of Virtual Reality Platforms for Robotic Surgery
AU - Ahmad, Sarwat B.
AU - Rice, Mary Joe
AU - Chang, Cecilia
AU - Zureikat, Amer H.
AU - Zeh, Herbert J.
AU - Hogg, Melissa E.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by an industry supported educational training grant from Intuitive Surgical ( EIN 23-0965480 ) (Sunnyvale, CA) to train Society of Surgical Oncology fellows in the use of robotic surgery. All data is stored and managed at the University of Pittsburgh. Access to this data is not available to anyone outside the IRB approved researchers.
Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by an industry supported educational training grant from Intuitive Surgical (EIN 23-0965480) (Sunnyvale, CA) to train Society of Surgical Oncology fellows in the use of robotic surgery. All data is stored and managed at the University of Pittsburgh. Access to this data is not available to anyone outside the IRB approved researchers.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background: A virtual reality (VR) curriculum performed on the da Vinci Simulation System (DVSS) was previously shown to be effective in training fellows. The dV-Trainer is a separate platform with similar features to the da Vinci console, but its efficacy and utility versus the DVSS simulator are not well known. Materials and Methods: A mastery-based VR curriculum was completed by surgical fellows on the DVSS (2014-2016) and on the dV-Trainer (2016-2018) at a large academic center. Pre-test/post-test scores were used to evaluate performance between the two groups. Data was collected prospectively. Results: Forty-six fellows enrolled in the curriculum: surgical oncology (n=31), hepatobiliary (n=5), head/neck (n=4), endocrine (n=2), cardiothoracic (n=2), gynecology (n=1) and transplant surgery (n=1). Twenty-four used the DVSS and twenty-two used the dV-Trainer. Compared to the DVSS, the dV-Trainer was associated with lower scores on 2 of 3 VR modules in the pre-test (P=0.027, P<0.001, respectively) and post-test (P=0.021, P<0.001, respectively). Fellows in the dV-Trainer era scored lower on inanimate drills as well. Average VR curriculum score was lower on the dV-Trainer (71.3% vs 83.34%, P<0.001). dV-Trainer users spent more time completing the pre-test and post-test; however, overall simulator time to complete the curriculum was not significantly different (297 vs 231 minutes, P=0.142). Both groups showed improvement in scores after completion of the VR curriculum. Conclusions: The dV-Trainer simulator allows for more usability outside the operating room to complete VR modules; however, the DVSS simulator group outperformed the dV-Trainer group on the post-test.
AB - Background: A virtual reality (VR) curriculum performed on the da Vinci Simulation System (DVSS) was previously shown to be effective in training fellows. The dV-Trainer is a separate platform with similar features to the da Vinci console, but its efficacy and utility versus the DVSS simulator are not well known. Materials and Methods: A mastery-based VR curriculum was completed by surgical fellows on the DVSS (2014-2016) and on the dV-Trainer (2016-2018) at a large academic center. Pre-test/post-test scores were used to evaluate performance between the two groups. Data was collected prospectively. Results: Forty-six fellows enrolled in the curriculum: surgical oncology (n=31), hepatobiliary (n=5), head/neck (n=4), endocrine (n=2), cardiothoracic (n=2), gynecology (n=1) and transplant surgery (n=1). Twenty-four used the DVSS and twenty-two used the dV-Trainer. Compared to the DVSS, the dV-Trainer was associated with lower scores on 2 of 3 VR modules in the pre-test (P=0.027, P<0.001, respectively) and post-test (P=0.021, P<0.001, respectively). Fellows in the dV-Trainer era scored lower on inanimate drills as well. Average VR curriculum score was lower on the dV-Trainer (71.3% vs 83.34%, P<0.001). dV-Trainer users spent more time completing the pre-test and post-test; however, overall simulator time to complete the curriculum was not significantly different (297 vs 231 minutes, P=0.142). Both groups showed improvement in scores after completion of the VR curriculum. Conclusions: The dV-Trainer simulator allows for more usability outside the operating room to complete VR modules; however, the DVSS simulator group outperformed the dV-Trainer group on the post-test.
KW - Mastery-based assessment
KW - Robotic training
KW - Simulation
KW - Virtual reality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111595702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85111595702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jss.2021.06.036
DO - 10.1016/j.jss.2021.06.036
M3 - Article
C2 - 34348185
AN - SCOPUS:85111595702
SN - 0022-4804
VL - 267
SP - 695
EP - 704
JO - Journal of Surgical Research
JF - Journal of Surgical Research
ER -