Face, Content and Construct Validity of a Novel Robotic Surgery Simulator

Abstract

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Sep 2011Face, Content and Construct Validity of a Novel Robotic Surgery Simulator Andrew J. Hung, Pascal Zehnder, Mukul B. Patil, Jie Cai, Casey K. Ng, Monish Aron, Inderbir S. Gill, and Mihir M. Desai Andrew J. HungAndrew J. Hung , Pascal ZehnderPascal Zehnder , Mukul B. PatilMukul B. Patil , Jie CaiJie Cai , Casey K. NgCasey K. Ng , Monish AronMonish Aron , Inderbir S. GillInderbir S. Gill , and Mihir M. DesaiMihir M. Desai View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.064AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We evaluated the face, content and construct validity of the novel da Vinci® Skills Simulator™ using the da Vinci Si™ Surgeon Console as the surgeon interface. Materials and Methods: We evaluated a novel robotic surgical simulator for robotic surgery using the da Vinci Si Surgeon Console and Mimic™ virtual reality. Subjects were categorized as novice—no surgical training, intermediate—surgical training with fewer than 100 robotic cases or expert—100 or more primary surgeon robotic cases. Each participant completed 10 virtual reality exercises with 3 repetitions and a questionnaire with a 1 to 10 visual analog scale to assess simulator realism (face validity) and training usefulness (content validity). The simulator recorded performance based on specific metrics. The performance of experts, intermediates and novices was compared (construct validity) using the Kruskal-Wallis test. 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 <0.001). 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. References 1 : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve?. Urology2005; 66: 105. Google Scholar 2 : Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology2002; 60: 864. Google Scholar 3 : The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology2008; 72: 1068. Google Scholar 4 : The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int. : 2010. Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 5 : Robotic radical prostatectomy: operative technique, outcomes, and learning curve. JSLS2007; 11: 1. Google Scholar 6 : From proficiency to expert, when does the learning curve for robotic-assisted prostatectomies plateau?: The Columbia University experience . World J Urol2007; 25: 105. Google Scholar 7 : Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol2003; 169: 2289. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Safety and peri-operative outcomes during learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons versus experienced open radical prostatectomy surgeons incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol2010; 24: 1665. Google Scholar 9 : Effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy2010; 42: 1049. Google Scholar 10 : Utility of a t