Augmented versus Virtual Reality Laparoscopic Simulation: What Is the Difference?: A Comparison of the ProMIS Augmented Reality Laparoscopic Simulator versus LapSim Virtual Reality Laparoscopic Simulator

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging new modality for laparoscopic skills training; however, most simulators lack realistic haptic feedback. Augmented reality (AR) is a new laparoscopic simulation system offering a combination of physical objects and VR simulation. Laparoscopic instruments are used within an hybrid mannequin on tissue or objects while using video tracking. This study was designed to assess the difference in realism, haptic feedback, and didactic value between AR and VR laparoscopic simulation. METHODS: The ProMIS AR and LapSim VR simulators were used in this study. The participants performed a basic skills task and a suturing task on both simulators, after which they filled out a questionnaire about their demographics and their opinion of both simulators scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The participants were allotted to 3 groups depending on their experience: experts, intermediates and novices. Significant differences were calculated with the paired t-test. RESULTS: There was general consensus in all groups that the ProMIS AR laparoscopic simulator is more realistic than the LapSim VR laparoscopic simulator in both the basic skills task (mean 4.22 resp. 2.18, P <0.000) as well as the suturing task (mean 4.15 resp. 1.85, P <0.000). The ProMIS is regarded as having better haptic feedback (mean 3.92 resp. 1.92, P <0.000) and as being more useful for training surgical residents (mean 4.51 resp. 2.94, P <0.000). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with the VR simulator, the AR laparoscopic simulator was regarded by all participants as a better simulator for laparoscopic skills training on all tested feature

Do Basic Psychomotor Skills Transfer Between Different Image-based Procedures?

Background - Surgical techniques that draw from multiple types of image-based procedures (IBP) are increasing, such as Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery, fusing laparoscopy and flexible endoscopy. However, little is known about the relation between psychomotor skills for performing different types of IBP. For example, do basic psychomotor colonoscopy and laparoscopy skills interact? Methods - Following a cross-over study design, 29 naïve endoscopists were trained on the Simbionix GI Mentor and the SimSurgery SEP simulators. Group C (n = 15) commenced with a laparoscopy session, followed by four colonoscopy sessions and a second laparoscopy session. Group L (n = 14) started with a colonoscopy session, followed by four laparoscopy sessions and a second colonoscopy session. Results - No significant differences were found between the performances of group L and group C in their first training sessions on either technique. With additional colonoscopy training, group C outperformed group L in the second laparoscopy training session on the camera navigation task. Conclusions - Overall, training in the basic colonoscopy tasks does not affect performance of basic laparoscopy tasks (and vice versa). However, to limited extent, training of basic psychomotor skills for colonoscopy do appear to contribute to the performance of angled laparoscope navigation tasks. Thus, training and assessment of IBP typespecific skills should focus on each type of tasks independently. Future research should further investigate the influence of psychometric abilities on the performance of IBP and the transfer of skills for physicians who are experienced in one IBP type and would like to become proficient in another type of IBP.Industrial DesignIndustrial Design Engineerin

Ergonomic factors on task performance in laparoscopic surgery training

This paper evaluates the effect of ergonomic factors on task performance and trainee posture during laparoscopic surgery training. Twenty subjects without laparoscopic experience were allotted into 2 groups. Group 1 was trained under the optimal ergonomic simulation setting according to current ergonomic guidelines (Condition A). Group 2 was trained under non-optimal ergonomic simulation setting that can often be observed during training in a skills lab (Condition B). Posture analysis showed that the subjects held a much more neutral posture under Condition A than under Condition B (p < 0.001). The subjects had less joint excursion and experienced less discomfort in their neck, shoulders, and arms under Condition A. Significant difference in task performance between Conditions A and B (p < 0.05) was found. This study shows that the optimal ergonomic simulation setting leads to better task performance. In addition, no significant differences of task performance, for Groups 1 and 2 using the same test setting were found. However, better performance was observed for Group 1. It can be concluded that the optimal and non-optimal training setting have different learning effects on trainees' skill learning. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved