Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Face and content validity of analog surgical instruments on a novel physics-driven minimally invasive spinal fusion surgical simulator

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

Medical simulators are a modern-day technology that allow clinicians to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to perform complex surgical procedures. Validating these simulators is crucial prior to their integration in surgical training programs. However, surgical simulators are typically validated as a whole, without emphasizing validation of the instruments themselves. The purpose of this study was to design and validate analog surgical instruments for a novel, minimally invasive spinal fusion simulator. The surgical procedure was performed on cadavers and on a surgical simulator by experienced spine surgeons to compare and validate the analog instruments. Observations were made to assess the duration of each task and the participants’ interaction with each instrument, judged by finger position and location. Immediately after the completion of the simulator trial, participants completed a questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale. The duration of each task in the surgical procedure varied between participants and training platforms (cadaver versus simulator), while participants’ interaction with the instruments was similar, regardless of the training platform. Questionnaire results yielded an average score of 3.7/5 for the instrument-related questions. Subsequently, face and content validity were established. The results suggest feasibility and value in independently validating the analog instruments used in simulator training.

Graphical abstract 

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shaharan S, Neary P (2014) Evaluation of surgical training in the era of simulation. World J Gastrointest Endosc 6(9):436–447. https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v6.i9.436

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. McDougall EM (2007) Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 21(3):244–247. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.9985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bashankaev B, Baido S, Wexner SD (2011) Review of available methods of simulation training to facilitate surgical education. Surg Endosc 25(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1123-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2009) From scalpel to simulator: a surgical journey. Surgery 145(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2008.07.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neary P, Boyle E, Delaney C, Senagore A, Keane F, Gallagher A (2008) Construct validation of a novel hybrid virtual-reality simulator for training and assessing laparoscopic colectomy; results from the first course for experienced senior laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 22(10):2301–2309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9900-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vazan M, Gempt J, Meyer B, Buchmann N, Ryang YM (2017) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature. Acta Neurochir 159(6):1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3078-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Zuckerman SL, Godil SS, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ (2014) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurgery 82(1):230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mostafa AE, Ryu WHA, Chan S, Takashima K, Kopp G, Costa Sousa M, Sharlin E (2017) Designing NeuroSimVR: a stereoscopic virtual reality spine surgery simulator. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/31003

  9. Ledwos N, Mirchi N, Bissonnette V, Winkler-Schwartz A, Yilmaz R, Del Maestro RF (2020) Virtual reality anterior cervical discectomy and fusion simulation on the novel sim-ortho platform: validation studies. Operative Neurosurgery 20(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opaa269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ, Libertino JA, Moinzadeh A (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73(6):1288–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Scheele F, Bemelmans BLH, Scherpbier AJJA (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surgical Endoscopy : And Other Interventional TechniquesOfficial. Journal of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) 24:3536–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0634-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. LeBlanc J, Hutchison C, Hu Y, Donnon T (2013) Feasibility and fidelity of practising surgical fixation on a virtual ulna bone. Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie 56(4):91–97. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.010912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR, Narins H, Gomella LG, Trabulsi EJ, Lallas CD (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci skills simulator. Urology 79(5):1068–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W, Ahmed K, Elhage O, Jaye P, Khan MS, Dasgupta P (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(2):152–156. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588411X12851639108358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Harbison RA, Johnson KE, Miller C, Sardesai MG, Davis GE (2017) Face, content, and construct validation of a low-cost, non-biologic, sinus surgery task trainer and knowledge-based curriculum. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology 7(4):405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brewin J, Nedas T, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Keisu J, Dasgupta P (2010) Face, content and construct validation of the first virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator. BJU Int 106(6):850–854. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09193.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Oliveira MM, Araujo AB, Nicolato A, Prosdocimi A, Godinho JV, Valle ALM, Santos M, Reis AB, Ferreira MT, Sabbagh A, Gusmao S, Del Maestro R (2016) Face, content, and construct validity of brain tumor microsurgery simulation using a human placenta model. Operative Neurosurgery 12(1):61–67. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cotter T, Driscoll M (2022) Design synthesis of a robotic uniaxial torque device for orthopedic haptic simulation. ASME Journal of Medical Devices. (accepted for publication).

  19. Brehmer M, Swartz R (2005) Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur Urol 48(3):458–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gorman PJ, Meier AH, Rawn C, Krummel TM (2000) The future of medical education is no longer blood and guts, it is bits and bytes. Am J Surg 180(5):353–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00514-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Badash I, Burtt K, Solorzano CA, Carey JN (2016) Innovations in surgery simulation: a review of past, current and future techniques. Annals of Translational Medicine 4 (23). https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.12.24

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their research partners, namely CAE Healthcare Inc. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and DePuy Synthes Spine (Raynham, MA, USA), for their collaboration throughout the development of the surgical simulator. The authors would like to extend their thanks to Alicia McDermott and Eric Sheridan at DePuy Synthes Spine for their assistance and support in conducting the surgeon trials.

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Center (NSERC) [grant number CRDPJ 515768–17]; MEDTEQ [grant number 9-B Neurochirurgie]; DePuy Synthes Spine, CAE Inc., and McGill University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Research Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, 845 Sherbrooke St. W, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 0C3, Canada

    Brittany Stott & Mark Driscoll

  2. Orthopaedic Research Lab, Montreal General Hospital, 1650 Cedar Ave (LS1.409), Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1A4, Canada

    Brittany Stott & Mark Driscoll

Authors
  1. Brittany Stott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Driscoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Driscoll.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The questionnaire and methodology for this study was approved by the Internal Review Board of McGill University (Ethics approval number: A03-M15-20A).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stott, B., Driscoll, M. Face and content validity of analog surgical instruments on a novel physics-driven minimally invasive spinal fusion surgical simulator. Med Biol Eng Comput 60, 2771–2778 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-022-02635-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-022-02635-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy