Effect of virtual reality versus dry lab training on technical skills in robotic surgical simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Samy Castillo-Flores, Ricardo E Nunez-Rocha, Andres A Abreu, Zachary A Whitham, Gilbert Z Murimwa, Morgan F Pettigrew, Ofelia Negrete-Vasquez, Ganesh Sankaranarayanan, Angela A Guzzetta, Daniel J Scott, Herbert J Zeh, Patricio M Polanco
{"title":"Effect of virtual reality versus dry lab training on technical skills in robotic surgical simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Samy Castillo-Flores, Ricardo E Nunez-Rocha, Andres A Abreu, Zachary A Whitham, Gilbert Z Murimwa, Morgan F Pettigrew, Ofelia Negrete-Vasquez, Ganesh Sankaranarayanan, Angela A Guzzetta, Daniel J Scott, Herbert J Zeh, Patricio M Polanco","doi":"10.1007/s00464-026-13459-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Virtual reality (VR) and dry lab (DL) platforms are widely used for robotic surgery training, yet their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain, particularly for suturing skills.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of controlled studies comparing VR with physical robotic simulation was conducted; meta-analysis was restricted to VR versus DL studies. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. The primary outcome was post-training technical performance; task completion time was secondary. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies (333 trainees) were included in the qualitative synthesis, and six (168 participants) in the quantitative analysis. DL training showed significantly higher post-test technical performance (SMD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.74 to - 0.12). In RCTs (n = 89), the difference was not significant (SMD - 0.15; 95% CI - 0.57 to 0.27). Fixed-time curricula favored DL (SMD - 0.51; 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.05), whereas proficiency-based progression showed no difference. Task completion time was similar between modalities (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.70).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DL training was associated with higher post-test technical performance overall, but not in the RCT-only analysis; task completion time was similar between modalities. Both approaches may have complementary roles depending on curriculum, task, and trainee characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-026-13459-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Virtual reality (VR) and dry lab (DL) platforms are widely used for robotic surgery training, yet their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain, particularly for suturing skills.

Methods: A systematic review of controlled studies comparing VR with physical robotic simulation was conducted; meta-analysis was restricted to VR versus DL studies. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. The primary outcome was post-training technical performance; task completion time was secondary. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) with 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models.

Results: Ten studies (333 trainees) were included in the qualitative synthesis, and six (168 participants) in the quantitative analysis. DL training showed significantly higher post-test technical performance (SMD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.74 to - 0.12). In RCTs (n = 89), the difference was not significant (SMD - 0.15; 95% CI - 0.57 to 0.27). Fixed-time curricula favored DL (SMD - 0.51; 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.05), whereas proficiency-based progression showed no difference. Task completion time was similar between modalities (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.70).

Conclusions: DL training was associated with higher post-test technical performance overall, but not in the RCT-only analysis; task completion time was similar between modalities. Both approaches may have complementary roles depending on curriculum, task, and trainee characteristics.

虚拟现实与干实验室训练对机器人手术模拟技术技能的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:虚拟现实(VR)和干实验室(DL)平台被广泛用于机器人手术训练,但它们的相对有效性仍然不确定,特别是在缝合技能方面。方法:系统回顾对比虚拟现实与物理机器人模拟的对照研究;荟萃分析仅限于VR与DL研究。检索PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE和Cochrane图书馆。主要结果为培训后的技术表现;任务完成时间是次要的。采用随机效应模型计算95% CI的合并标准化平均差异(SMD)或平均差异(MD)。结果:定性综合纳入10项研究(333名学员),定量分析纳入6项研究(168名参与者)。DL训练显著提高了测试后的技术表现(SMD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.74至- 0.12)。在rct (n = 89)中,差异不显著(SMD - 0.15; 95% CI - 0.57 ~ 0.27)。固定时间课程有利于深度学习(SMD - 0.51; 95% CI - 0.96至- 0.05),而基于熟练程度的进步没有差异。两种模式的任务完成时间相似(MD = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.43 ~ 0.70)。结论:DL训练总体上与较高的测试后技术表现相关,但仅在rct分析中并非如此;两种模式的任务完成时间相似。根据课程、任务和受训者的特点,这两种方法可以互补。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书