Operators believe patient-specific rehearsal improve individual and team performance.

INTRODUCTION: Rehearsing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair on patient-specific data is recent within virtual reality simulation and opens up new possibilities for operators to prepare for complex procedures. This study evaluated the feasibility of patient-specific rehearsal (PsR) and assessed operators' appraisal of the VIST-LAB simulator from Mentice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT-data was segmented and uploaded to the simulator, and simulated for 30 elective EVAR patients. Operators were asked how they perceived the PsR on a Likert scale after the PsR (once) and after the following procedure (each time). RESULTS: Patients were simulated and operated by 14 operators, always in pairs of one vascular surgeon and one interventional radiologist. The operators estimated that PsR improved individual and team performance (median 4), and recommended the use of PsR in general (median 4) and for difficult cases (median 5). The simulator realism got moderate scores (median 2-3). Inexperienced operators seemed to appreciate the PsR the most. CONCLUSIONS: PsR was feasible and was evaluated by operators to improve individual and team performance. Inexperienced users were more positive towards PsR than experienced users. PsR realism and the ease of importing patient-specific data can still be improved, and further studies to quantify and precisely identify benefits are needed.

Lack of transfer of skills after virtual reality simulator training with haptic feedback.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Virtual reality (VR) simulators enrich surgical training and offer training possibilities outside of the operating room (OR). In this study, we created a criterion-based training program on a VR simulator with haptic feedback and tested it by comparing the performances of a simulator group against a control group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medical students with no experience in laparoscopy were randomly assigned to a simulator group or a control group. In the simulator group, the candidates trained until they reached predefined criteria on the LapSim® VR simulator (Surgical Science AB, Göteborg, Sweden) with haptic feedback (XitactTM IHP, Mentice AB, Göteborg, Sweden). All candidates performed a cholecystectomy on a porcine organ model in a box trainer (the clinical setting). The performances were video rated by two surgeons blinded to subject training status. RESULTS: In total, 30 students performed the cholecystectomy and had their videos rated (N = 16 simulator group, N = 14 control group). The control group achieved better video rating scores than the simulator group (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The criterion-based training program did not transfer skills to the clinical setting. Poor mechanical performance of the simulated haptic feedback is believed to have resulted in a negative training effect.