Validation and Implementation of Surgical Simulators: a Critical Review of Present, Past, and Future

Overview

Journal Surg Endosc

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gastroenterology
General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2009 Jul 28

PMID 19633886

Citations 61

Authors

B M A Schout

A J M Hendrikx

F Scheele

B L H Bemelmans

A J J A Scherpbier

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In the past 20 years the surgical simulator market has seen substantial growth. Simulators are useful for teaching surgical skills effectively and with minimal harm and discomfort to patients. Before a simulator can be integrated into an educational program, it is recommended that its validity be determined. This study aims to provide a critical review of the literature and the main experiences and efforts relating to the validation of simulators during the last two decades.

Methods: Subjective and objective validity studies between 1980 and 2008 were identified by searches in Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science.

Results: Although several papers have described definitions of various subjective types of validity, the literature does not offer any general guidelines concerning methods, settings, and data interpretation. Objective validation studies on endourological simulators were mainly characterized by a large variety of methods and parameters used to assess validity and in the definition and identification of expert and novice levels of performance.

Conclusion: Validity research is hampered by a paucity of widely accepted definitions and measurement methods of validity. It would be helpful to those considering the use of simulators in training programs if there were consensus on guidelines for validating surgical simulators and the development of training programs. Before undertaking a study to validate a simulator, researchers would be well advised to conduct a training needs analysis (TNA) to evaluate the existing need for training and to determine program requirements in a training program design (TPD), methods that are also used by designers of military simulation programs. Development and validation of training models should be based on a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists (teachers), residents (learners), educationalists (teaching the teachers), and industrial designers (providers of teaching facilities). In addition to technical skills, attention should be paid to contextual, interpersonal, and task-related factors.

Citing Articles

Face and Content Validity of Farra Eye Model as a Surgical Simulator for Capsulorhexis Training.

Nursanti H, Barliana J, Widyawati S, Martha F, Khoe L J CME. 2025; 14(1):2467566.

PMID: 39975958 PMC: 11837912. DOI: 10.1080/28338073.2025.2467566.

Optimizing modern surgical simulation through instructor feedback - insights from a retrospective observational study in a tertiary hospital.

Tee Y, Cheng C, Li P, Hsieh M, Liao C, Fu C BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):1109.

PMID: 39379925 PMC: 11459801. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-06090-x.

Creation and validation of a novel low-cost dry lab for early resident training and assessment of robotic prostatectomy technical proficiency.

Kunitsky K, Venkataramana A, Fero K, Ballon J, Komberg J, Reiter R Curr Urol. 2024; 18(2):133-138.

PMID: 39176295 PMC: 11337995. DOI: 10.1097/CU9.0000000000000192.

Haptic based fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulation for training with objective assessments.

Abinaya P, Manivannan M Front Robot AI. 2024; 11:1363952.

PMID: 38873121 PMC: 11170034. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2024.1363952.

Orthopaedic Hand Surgical Simulation Training: A Review.

Boere P, Kachooei A, Ilyas A J Hand Microsurg. 2024; 16(2):100024.

PMID: 38855522 PMC: 11144645. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1762895.

References

Wignall G, Denstedt J, Preminger G, Cadeddu J, Pearle M, Sweet R . Surgical simulation: a urological perspective. J Urol. 2008; 179(5):1690-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.014. View

Seymour N, Gallagher A, Roman S, OBrien M, Andersen D, Satava R . Analysis of errors in laparoscopic surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18(4):592-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8927-2. View

Issenberg S, McGaghie W, Hart I, Mayer J, Felner J, Petrusa E . Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA. 1999; 282(9):861-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.9.861. View

Kneebone R, Nestel D, Wetzel C, Black S, Jacklin R, Aggarwal R . The human face of simulation: patient-focused simulation training. Acad Med. 2006; 81(10):919-24. DOI: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000238323.73623.c2. View

Ganai S, Donroe J, St Louis M, Lewis G, Seymour N . Virtual-reality training improves angled telescope skills in novice laparoscopists. Am J Surg. 2007; 193(2):260-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.11.019. View

Grantcharov T, Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Rosenberg J . Impact of hand dominance, gender, and experience with computer games on performance in virtual reality laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17(7):1082-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-9176-0. View

Bradley P, Bligh J . Clinical skills centres: where are we going?. Med Educ. 2005; 39(7):649-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02189.x. View

Teunissen P, Stapel D, Scheele F, Scherpbier A, Boor K, van Diemen-Steenvoorde J . The influence of context on residents' evaluations: effects of priming on clinical judgment and affect. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007; 14(1):23-41. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-007-9082-2. View

Brehmer M, Swartz R . Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur Urol. 2005; 48(3):458-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.031. View

10.

Miller G . The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990; 65(9 Suppl):S63-7. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045. View

11.

Shah J, Montgomery B, Langley S, Darzi A . Validation of a flexible cystoscopy course. BJU Int. 2002; 90(9):833-5. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.03089.x. View

12.

Satava R, Cuschieri A, Hamdorf J . Metrics for objective Assessment. Surg Endosc. 2002; 17(2):220-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8869-8. View

13.

Schijven M, Jakimowicz J . The learning curve on the Xitact LS 500 laparoscopy simulator: profiles of performance. Surg Endosc. 2003; 18(1):121-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-003-9040-x. View

14.

Jacomides L, Ogan K, Cadeddu J, Pearle M . Use of a virtual reality simulator for ureteroscopy training. J Urol. 2003; 171(1):320-3. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000101515.70623.4a. View

15.

Knudsen B, Matsumoto E, Chew B, Johnson B, Margulis V, Cadeddu J . A randomized, controlled, prospective study validating the acquisition of percutaneous renal collecting system access skills using a computer based hybrid virtual reality surgical simulator: phase I. J Urol. 2006; 176(5):2173-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.011. View

16.

Van Sickle K, Baghai M, Huang I, Goldenberg A, Smith C, Matt Ritter E . Construct validity of an objective assessment method for laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. Am J Surg. 2008; 196(1):74-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.08.058. View

17.

Kneebone R, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M . Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Med Educ. 2004; 38(10):1095-102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01959.x. View

18.

Eubanks T, Clements R, Pohl D, Williams N, Schaad D, Horgan S . An objective scoring system for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 1999; 189(6):566-74. DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00218-5. View

19.

Kneebone R . Evaluating clinical simulations for learning procedural skills: a theory-based approach. Acad Med. 2005; 80(6):549-53. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200506000-00006. View

20.

Knoll T, Trojan L, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel M . Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 2005; 95(9):1276-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05518.x. View