MP23-09 A NOVEL TECHNIQUE FOR SIMULATED SURGICAL PROCEDURES USING 3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGY

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Robotic simulation is a popular training modality. However, simulators are costly, driving a push for lower cost options to improve access to training. Herein, we evaluate the face, content, and construct validity of a proof-of-concept simulation platform developed by Mimic Technologies, Inc. using third party, off-the-shelf gaming controllers (Hydra System) on existing virtual (VR) and procedure-specific augmented reality (AR) and procedure-specific VR (PS VR) exercises previously validated on the dV-Trainer (dVT). METHODS: Participants were classified as novice (no robot experience, n1⁄421) or expert ( 30 console cases, n1⁄49) and prospectively assessed on a VR suturing task, robotic partial nephrectomy procedure-specific AR module, and PS VR suturing task on both the Hydra and dVT platforms. Post exercise and post study questionnaires assessed realism of simulation (face validity) and utility for training (content validity), as well as user feedback for each system via Likert scale. Integrated tasks and questions in the AR module were assessed. Questionnaire responses, as well as novice and expert performance data, were compared using t tests to establish face, content, and construct validity. RESULTS: Face Validity: Experts rated Hydra “very realistic” on the AR module (4/5 (2-5)), but less so for VR and PS VR tasks. VR on Hydra was significantly less realistic than dVT (p1⁄40.02), with no difference in PS VR and AR. Content Validity: On the AR module, Hydra had content validity for training residents, and teaching anatomy and operation steps (4-5/5). The Hydra VR and PS VR tasks had lower content validity, with the VR task rating significantly less for training residents and teaching technical skills (p1⁄40.01 and 0.005, respectively). Construct Validity: For the VR task construct validity was seen in 4 of 7 metrics (p 0.03) on Hydra and 6 of 7 metrics (p 0.04) on dVT. Hydra did not show construct validity in the AR module and PS VR task. User Feedback: Hydra was rated “moderately” easy, comfortable, and smooth to use (3/5 (1-4) each). The interface was rated “fair” (2/5 (1-3)), versus “very good” for dVT (4/5 (3-5), p1⁄4 <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept, low-cost prototype based on the Hydra System for robotic simulation demonstrates face and content validity in an AR module for teaching residents cognitive content (anatomy and steps). The prototype has construct validity presently limited to VR basic skills tasks. This data is valuable for defining platform refinements, and highlights the role of early validation during simulation development.