Surgery Simulator Game Download
Purlan Ruais
Background: The purpose of this study was to assess whether training to proficiency with the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) simulator would result in improved performance in the operating room (OR).
Results: We studied 16 novices, 32 intermediates with a median surgical experience of 6 years (range 1 to 37) and a median of 0 robotic cases (range 0 to 50), and 15 experts with a median of 315 robotic cases (range 100 to 800). Participants rated the virtual reality and console experience as very realistic (median visual analog scale score 8/10) while expert surgeons rated the simulator as a very useful training tool for residents (10/10) and fellows (9/10). Experts outperformed intermediates and novices in almost all metrics (median overall score 88.3% vs 75.6% and 62.1%, respectively, between group p
Conclusions: We confirmed the face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic skill simulator that uses the da Vinci Si Surgeon Console. Although it is currently limited to basic skill training, this device is likely to influence robotic surgical training across specialties.
Three free downloadable content (DLC) features and one paid DLC were added after release. The first was released on 21 June 2013, and features an operation in which the player performs surgery on Team Fortress 2's character Heavy, based on the "Meet the Medic" Team Fortress 2 promotional video. The second was released on 9 September 2013, named "Code Name Trisha", and features an operation in which surgery is performed on an alien.[2] The third was released on 2 June 2016, named "Inside Donald Trump", in which a heart transplant is performed on then presidential candidate Donald Trump.[3] On 14 August 2014, an Anniversary A&E Edition was released on Steam. It added the eye and teeth transplants from the iOS version along with some other features, such as operating while running through the hospital corridors.[4]
In recent years, a large number of surgical simulators have emerged that are unique to different surgical specialties, procedures and procedural variations. For example, different bench-top and VR simulators exist for the practice of endoscopic foreign body removal, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, cleft palate repair and intestinal anastomosis among many others (5-7). Specific simulators also exist for unique complications of a specific surgery, such as a recently developed sheep-based simulator for managing vascular emergencies during skull base surgery (2). Finally, with the ability to practice surgeries on human cadavers and animal models, nearly any surgery can be simulated outside of the operating room.
Stand-alone simulators have also been developed for minimally invasive surgeries. Laparoscopic box simulators require the training surgeon to operate within a closed environment containing cameras that allow trainees to watch their own movements. One of the most common and simple laparoscopic box simulators, the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS), consists of basic laparoscopic skills tasks including peg transfer, cutting, placing a ligating loop and suturing (35). With the advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing, high-fidelity laparoscopic simulators can accurately recreate complicated procedures under realistic condition (6). For example, 3D printing technology has been incorporated into hyper-realistic training models for laparoscopic pyeloplasty, thoracoscopic esophageal atresia repair and other minimally invasive surgeries (6,36). Recently, 3D printing has been used to create patient-specific models for preoperative planning of complicated procedures (37).
The efficacy of bench-top and laparoscopic box simulators in improving surgical skills has been validated by multiple studies (32,38-41). Observed benefits from using these simulators include the development of hand-eye coordination and dexterity in performing surgical tasks. Thus, a curriculum created by Scott et al. utilizing this technology in surgical residency training was found to successfully teach surgical skills in a cost-effective manner (40,41). Additionally, the benefits of MISTELS in laparoscopic training are well-established, leading to its use in many surgical training programs (35).
Currently, there are 4 widely used RAS simulators for the da Vinci System: the SEP-Robot, RoSS, dV-Trainer, and the da Vinci Skills Simulator (50). The da Vinci Skills Simulator is a hardware pack which loads a VR simulator onto the actual da Vinci device (51). The RoSS and dV-Trainer, on the other hand, are stand-alone devices with controls resembling those of the da Vinci system (50). These simulators are low-fidelity and thus only allow practice of individual surgical tasks testing hand-eye coordination, tissue manipulation, suturing and knot tying (52). Like other VR simulators, the da Vinci simulators also produce metrics of performance based on completion time, error measures, and motion analysis (50). Because of their ease-of-use and readily available metrics, these simulators are becoming increasingly used for training novice surgeons in RAS.
Some of the most pioneering work in rapid prototyping is occurring in the field of neurosurgical simulation, where 3D printers are used to create reliable models of patient-specific cerebrovascular pathology from information provided by CT angiograms. When printed with the surrounding bony structures, these models allow the surgeon to plan the trajectory of approach to aneurysms and to test different aneurysm clips for the appropriate size and shape (54,55). Additionally, rapid prototyping has been used in cardiac surgery, where 3D-printed heart models rendered from cross-sectional patient images have been used in simulations to train staff on postoperative critical care (56).
Despite recent advances, traditional surgical simulation models readily available to medical institutions, such as bench-top models, cadavers and laparoscopic trainers, can still effectively train surgeons and improve operating room performance. For example, multiple meta-analyses have determined that the addition of simulation to conventional surgical training results in improved surgical performance, reduced surgery times, decreased error rate and improved patient outcomes (66-68). Other clinical trials focusing on VR simulators of laparoscopic surgery have similarly validated that the use of these systems reduced surgical complication rates, improved the development of trainee surgical skills and shortened operative times overall (69-71). Essentially every form of surgical simulation previously discussed, from animal models and cadavers to robotic trainers and 3D-printed models, has demonstrated some benefit to surgical training programs (15,16,22-24,32-35,38-41,47,48,51,54,58,64). Moreover, many simulators have shown to be cost-effective options for training residents (72). Thus, they represent viable options for surgical training programs.
The dVT was one of the first VR simulators commercially available for robotic training and is still one of the most predominant. The console is simulated as a fully adjustable stereoscopic viewer and cable-driven master controller gimbals. The software operates on an external computer used for selecting tasks, managing users and curricula, and observing. All exercises were simulated by Mimic and were graded as an overall percentage composed of individual exercise-specific score modules. In comparison, the dVSS, commonly referred to as the backpack, is an optional add-on for da Vinci Xi and Si systems that is attached to the surgeon's console. Most of the exercises are simulated by Mimic and are also found on the dV- T, although there is a set of additional suturing exercises created by 3D Systems. The RM is a stand-alone simulated console, with nonfixed master controllers and all software developed by 3D Systems.
All 3 simulators offer a variety of VR tasks, ranging from basic orientation for console operation to procedure-specific skills. The dVT and RM have full-length procedures for common robotic cases, such as hysterectomy or prostatectomy. All of these stimulators have been independently validated for face and content validity.16,21,26 There have been comparisons between the dVT and dVSS, with the dVT showing slightly less overall performance; however, the difference was not directly quantified.29 In this study, we saw that, overall, all 3 simulators showed evidence of face and content validity, but that the dVSS scored significantly higher than its counterparts on both measures. This result is intuitive, given that it incorporates the da Vinci surgeon's console as part of the trainer itself. There was no significant difference between the other 2 trainers, although there was a trend toward a preference for the RM, for both its realism and usefulness for training. Although it may be intuitive that the dVSS would outperform the other 2 simulators, there has been no confirmation in the data up to this point. In addition, it is important to demonstrate that other simulators (such as the RM) are similar in performance to the dVSS.
The other factor evaluated in this study is the role of cost. Besides avoiding injury to the patient or possible liability during the known learning curve for robotic surgery, a motivation is the need to reduce cost during this period. It has been estimated in previous studies that the cost of the average learning curve in terms of operating time exceeds $200,000.30 This estimate does not include the price of the device itself or associated instruments and maintenance. It highlights the need for reliable simulators to help reduce this intraoperative learning curve, improving both patient safety and reducing cost.
Limitations of this study include the small sample size and the overall lesser experience of the cohort. The sample size limits the conclusions we can draw from the statistical trends, and it may be that, given a larger sample size, the trends established in the comparison of the RM and dVT would have been significant differences. This study, as opposed to previous studies, had a predominantly novice (defined variably in the literature based on previous robotic experience) experience level.16,21,26 Face and content validity are applicable to nonexperts; however, it limits the generalizability of the findings. This group was excellent for evaluating the simulators for the use of training. Simulators are being developed specifically to decrease the learning curve effect during surgery on actual patients.6 In general, trainees will use simulators more frequently than experienced surgeons. The assessment of face validity and usefulness of the simulator can ensure their use.
dca57bae1f