Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-45ctf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-16T04:34:17.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 23 - Simulation Training in Minimally Invasive Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2025

Camran R. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Farr R. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Surgery for Gynecology/Oncology, New York
Ceana Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta
Nisha Lakhi
Affiliation:
Richmond University Medical Center, New York
Azadeh Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Institute and Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, California
Get access

Summary

In order to enhance training, improve patient safety, and reduce the complication rate associated with minimally invasive surgery, surgical simulators have been incorporated into training curricula and skills courses. This chapter provides an overview of the development of simulation devices. Important concepts in simulation training are explained including validation and fidelity. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages and compare the different types of simulators available for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted platforms. The integration of simulators in residency and fellowship training is presented. It is important to emphasize that currently surgical simulation is merely an adjunct to, and not a replacement for, other traditional methods of training, including supervision, mentorship, feedback, and operative experience.

Information

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Page, RL. Brief history of flight simulation. SimTechT 2000 Proceedings, Sydney, Australia: The SimTechT 2000 Organizing and Technical Committee; 2000.Google Scholar
Tjomsland, N, Baskett, P. Resuscitation greats: Asmund S Laerdal. Resuscitation 2002;53:115119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abboudi, H, Khan, MS, Aboumarzouk, O, et al. Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators – a systematic review. BJU Int 2013;111(2):194205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogula, T, Acquafresca, PA, Bazan, M. Training and credentialing in robotic surgery. In Kroh, M, Chilikonda, S, eds. Essentials of Robotic Surgery. Cham: Springer; 2015: 1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, C, Oestergaard, J, Larsen, CR. Integration of laparoscopic virtual-reality simulation into gynaecology training. BJOG 2011;118(Supp 3):510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, LM, Middleton, PF, Anthony, A, et al. Surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2006;243:291300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanumuri, P, Ganai, S, Wohaibi, EM, et al. Virtual reality and computer-enhanced training devices equally improve laparoscopic surgical skill in novices. JSLS 2008;12:219226.Google ScholarPubMed
Botden, SMBI, Buzink, SN, Schijven, MP, Jakimowicz, JJ. 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. World J Surg 2007;31:764772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botden, SMBI, Jakimowicz, JJ. What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endoscop 2009;23(8):16931700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Havighurst, LC, Fields, LE, Fields, CL. High versus low fidelity simulations: Does the type of format affect candidates’ performance or perceptions? Paper presented at the 27th Annual IPMAAC Conference on Personnel Assessment, Exploring New Horizons in Assessment, Baltimore, MD, June 2003.Google Scholar
Maran, NJ, Glavin, RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education? Med Educ 2003;37(Suppl 1):2228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noble, C. The relationship between fidelity and learning in aviation training and assessment, J Air Transp 2002;7(3):3354.Google Scholar
Kenney, PA, Wszolek, MF, Gould, JJ, Libertino, JA, Moinzadeh, A. Face, content, and construct validity of DV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 2009;73:12881292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lendvay, TS, Casale, P, Sweet, R, Peters, C. Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J Robotic Surg 2008;2:145149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lendvay, TS, Casale, P, Sweet, R, Peters, C. VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the DV-trainer robotic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 2008;132:242244.Google ScholarPubMed
Sethi, AS, Peine, WJ, Mohammadi, Y, Sundaram, CP. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 2009;23:503508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerner, MA, Ayalew, M, Peine, WJ, Sundaram, CP. Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol 2010;24:467472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, DC, Margules, AC, Kundavaram, CR, et al. Face, content, and construct validation of the da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology 2012 May;79(5):10681072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hung, AJ, Zehnder, P, Patil, MB, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. Urol 2011 Sep;186(3):10191024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hung, AJ, Patil, MB, Zehnder, P, et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 2012;187:630637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egi, H, Hattori, M, Tokunaga, M, et al. Face, content and concurrent validity of the Mimic® DV-Trainer for robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a prospective study. Eur Surg Res July 2013;50:292300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simulated Surgical Systems. Robotic surgical simulator. 2014. www.simulatedsurgicals.com/what-is-ross.htm.Google Scholar
Seixas-Mikelus, SA, Kesavadas, T, Srimathveeravalli, G, et al. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 2010;76:357360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seixas-Mikelus, SA, Stegemann, AP, Kesavadas, T, et al. Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 2011;107:11301135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kesavadas, T, Kumar, A, Srimathveeravalli, G, et al. Efficacy of Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS) for the da Vinci® Surgical System. J Urol 2009;181(Suppl.):823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavazzi, A, Bahsoun, AN, Van Haute, W, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2011;93:146150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×