Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators.
Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators.
复制标题
DOI：
10.4293/jsls.2017.00081
复制
发表时间：
2018-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Brand TC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hertz AM;George EI;Vaccaro CM;Brand TC
有几种不同的商业虚拟现实机器人模拟器，但很少有比较数据。我们比较了3个机器人手术模拟器的表面和内容的有效性，以及它们的价格和可用性。15名参与者完成了以下每项任务：dV-Trainer（dVT; Mimic Technologies，Inc.，西雅图，华盛顿，美国），达芬奇技能模拟器（dVSS;直观外科公司，桑尼维尔，加州，美国）和RobotiX Mentor（RM; 3D Systems，Rock Hill，南卡罗来纳州，美国）。参与者完成了先前验证的面部和内容有效性问卷和人口统计学问卷。然后对评分进行统计分析。参与者的平均年龄为29.6岁（范围：25-41岁）。大多数是外科实习生，平均进行了8.6次机器人初次手术。对于表面效度，ANOVA显示dVSS优于dVT（P = .001）的显著差异，RM、dVSS和dVT之间无显著差异。内容效度显示了相似的结果，dVSS和dVT之间存在显著差异（P = 0.021），RM和dVT之间存在差异趋势（P = 0.092），dVSS和RM之间无差异（P = 0.99）。所有模拟器都证明了表面和内容有效性的证据，dVSS的得分显著更高;它也是成本最低的（模拟器为80，000美元），尽管由于术中使用而经常无法使用。dVT和RM具有类似的表面和内容有效性，稍微贵一点，而且很容易获得。
There are several different commercially available virtual-reality robotic simulators, but very little comparative data. We compared the face and content validity of 3 robotic surgery simulators and their pricing and availability. Fifteen participants completed one task on each of the following: dV-Trainer (dVT; Mimic Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA), da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS; Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), and RobotiX Mentor (RM; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA). Participants completed previously validated face and content validity questionnaires and a demographics questionnaire. Statistical analysis was then performed on the scores. Participants had a mean age of 29.6 (range, 25–41) years. Most were surgical trainees, having performed a mean of 8.6 robotic primary surgeries. For face validity, ANOVA showed a significant difference favoring the dVSS over the dVT (P = .001), and no significant difference between the RM, dVSS, and dVT. Content validity revealed similar results, with a significant difference between the dVSS and dVT (P = .021), a trend toward a difference between the RM and dVT (P = .092), and no difference between the dVSS and RM (P = .99). All simulators demonstrated evidence of face and content validity, with significantly higher scores for the dVSS; it is also the least costly ($80,000 for the simulator), although it is frequently unavailable because of intra-operative use. The dVT and RM have similar face and content validity, are slightly more expensive, and are readily available.