Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Simulation-based surgical training systems in laparoscopic surgery: a current review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Simulation-based training has been widely used in medical education. More specifically, various systems for minimally invasive surgery training have been proposed in the past two decades. The aim of this article is to review and summarize the existing simulation-based training systems for laparoscopic surgery in terms of their technical realizations. Forty-three training systems were found and analyzed. These training systems generally consist of training tasks, a visualization interface, and an instrument interface. Three different approaches—physical, virtual, and augmented reality—to implement visualization interfaces are discussed first. Then, haptic feedback, performance evaluation, and guidance methods are summarized. Portable devices to enable at-home training and instrument tracking technologies to support visualization, evaluation, and guidance are also presented. Based on survey of the relevant literature, we propose several recommendations to design the next-generation training systems in laparoscopic surgery. Novel guidance and assessment schemes with augmented reality visualization are recommended to design an intelligent surgical training simulator. This intelligent simulator enhances the training procedure and ultimately improves the patient safety.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2013) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators a systematic review. BJU Int 111:194–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Acosta E, Temkin B (2005) Haptic laparoscopic skills trainer with practical user evaluation metrics. Stud Health Technol Inform 111:8–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Adrales GL, Chu UB, Witzke DB et al (2003) Evaluating minimally invasive surgery training using low-cost mechanical simulations. Surg Endosc 17:580–585

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad MA, Mansoor S Bin, Khan ZA, et al (2013) Benchmarking expert surgeons’ path for evaluating a trainee surgeon’s performance. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH international conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry - VRCAI ’13. pp 57–62

  • Alcaniz M, Monserrat C, Meier U et al (2003) GeRTiSS: generic real time surgery simulation. Stud Health Technol Inform 94:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreatta PB, Woodrum DT, Birkmeyer JD et al (2006) Laparoscopic skills are improved with LapMentorTM training: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 243:854–860

    Google Scholar 

  • Basdogan C, De S, Kim J et al (2004) Haptics in minimally invasive surgical simulation and training. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 24:56–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Basdogan C, Sedef M, Harders M, Wesarg S (2007) VR-based simulators for training in minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 27:54–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty JD (2005) How to build an inexpensive laparoscopic webcam-based trainer. BJU Int 96:679–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokhari R, Bollman-McGregor J, Kahol K et al (2010) Design, development, and validation of a take-home simulator for fundamental laparoscopic skills: using Nintendo Wii® for surgical training. Am Surg 76:583–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Botden SMBI, Buzink SN, Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ (2008a) ProMIS augmented reality training of laparoscopic procedures face validity. Simul Healthc 3:97–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Botden SMBI, De Hingh IHJT, Jakimowicz JJ (2009) Suturing training in augmented reality: gaining proficiency in suturing skills faster. Surg Endosc 23:2131–2137

    Google Scholar 

  • Botden SMBI, Jakimowicz JJ (2009) What is going on in augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 23:1693–1700

    Google Scholar 

  • Botden SMBI, Torab F, Buzink SN, Jakimowicz JJ (2008b) The importance of haptic feedback in laparoscopic suturing training and the additive value of virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc 22:1214–1222

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer SA, Davies BL, Rodriguez Y, Baena F (2014) Active constraints/virtual fixtures: A survey. IEEE Trans Robot 30:138–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Bric JD, Lumbard DC, Frelich MJ, Gould JC (2016) Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review. Surg Endosc 30:2169–2178

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakmak H, Maass H, Kühnapfel U (2005) VSOne, a virtual reality simulator for laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14:134–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekera SK, Donohue JF, Orley D et al (2006) Basic laparoscopic surgical training: examination of a low-cost alternative. Eur Urol 50:1285–1291

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen R-J, Lin H-W, Chang Y-H et al (2011) Development of an augmented reality force feedback virtual surgery training platform. Int J Autom Smart Technol 1:41–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Huang B, Chen S, et al (2013) FPGA and virtual reality based minimally invasive surgery training system. In: Asia-Pacific workshop on FPGA applications. pp 1–6

  • Chen Z, Malpani A, Chalasani P, et al (2016) Virtual fixture assistance for needle passing and knot tying. In: IEEE International conference on intelligent robots and systems. pp 2343–2350

  • Chmarra MK, Dankelman J, Van Den Dobbelsteen JJ, Jansen FW (2008) Force feedback and basic laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 22:2140–2148

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmarra MK, Grimbergen CA, Dankelman J (2007) Systems for tracking minimally invasive surgical instruments. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 16:328–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmarra MK, Klein S, De Winter JCF et al (2010) Objective classification of residents based on their psychomotor laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 24:1031–1039

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary K, Peters TM (2010) Image-guided interventions: technology review and clinical applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 12:119–142. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-070909-105249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotin S, Stylopoulos N, Ottensmeyer MP, et al (2002) Metrics for laparoscopic skills trainers: the weakest link! In: MICCAI - Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp 35–43

  • De Loose J, Weyers S (2017) A laparoscopic training model for surgical trainees. Gynecol Surg 14:24

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca V, Meo A, Mongelli A, et al (2016) Development of a virtual simulator for microanastomosis: new opportunities and challenges. In: International conference on augmented reality, virtual reality and computer graphics, pp 65–81

  • De Paolis LT, De Luca V (2019) Augmented visualization with depth perception cues to improve the surgeon’s performance in minimally invasive surgery. Med Biol Eng Comput 57:995–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-018-1929-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debes AJ, Aggarwal R, Balasundaram I, Jacobsen MB (2010) A tale of two trainers: virtual reality versus a video trainer for acquisition of basic laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 199:840–845

    Google Scholar 

  • Debes AJ, Aggarwal R, Balasundaram I, Jacobsen MBJ (2012) Construction of an evidence-based, graduated training curriculum for D-box, a webcam-based laparoscopic basic skills trainer box. Am J Surg 203:768–775

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy AJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H et al (2005) Construct validity for the LAPSIM laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 19:401–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Escamirosa FP, Flores RMO, García IO et al (2015) Face, content, and construct validity of the EndoViS training system for objective assessment of psychomotor skills of laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 29:3392–3403

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser SA, Klassen DR, Feldman LS et al (2003) Evaluating laparoscopic skills, setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg Endosc 17:964–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher AG, O’Sullivan GC (2011) Fundamentals of surgical simulation: principles and practice. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao B, Guo S, Xiao N (2012) Design of the virtual reality based robotic catheter system for minimally invasive surgery training. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on automation and logistics (ICAL), pp 611–616

  • Gillespie RB, O’Modhrain MS, Tang P et al (2013) The virtual teacher. J Chem Inf Model 53:1689–1699

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardon SF, Horeman T, Bonjer HJ, Meijerink WJHJ (2018) Force-based learning curve tracking in fundamental laparoscopic skills training. Surg Endosc 32:3609–3621

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasson HM, Aruna Kumari NV, Eekhout J et al (2001) Training simulator for developing laparoscopic skills. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 5:255–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernansanz A, Zerbato D, Gasperotti L, et al (2012) Improving the development of surgical skills with virtual fixtures in simulation. In: International conference on information processing in computer-assisted interventions, pp 157–166

  • Hong M (2019) An intelligent guidance system for computer-guided surgical training

  • Hong M, Peng KS, Lundine V, Rozenblit JW (2017a) Laparoscopic instrument tip position estimation for visual and haptic guidance in the computer assisted surgical trainer. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, SMC 2017, pp 3083–3088

  • Hong M, Rozenblit JW, Hamilton AJ (2017b) A simulation-based assessment system for computer assisted surgical trainer. In: Proceedings of the symposium on modeling and simulation in medicine. Society for Computer Simulation International, pp 834–844

  • Horeman T, Rodrigues SP, Van Den Dobbelsteen JJ et al (2012) Visual force feedback in laparoscopic training. Surg Endosc 26:242–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard T, Szewczyk J (2014) Visuo-haptic feedback for 1-D guidance in laparoscopic surgery. In: 5th IEEE RAS/EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, pp 58–65

  • Hruby GW, Sprenkle PC, Abdelshehid C et al (2008) The EZ trainer: validation of a portable and inexpensive simulator for training basic laparoscopic skills. J Urol 179:662–666

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwata N, Fujiwara M, Kodera Y et al (2011) Construct validity of the LapVR virtual-reality surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 25:423–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaber N (2010) The basket trainer: a homemade laparoscopic trainer attainable to every resident. J Minim Access Surg 6:3–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain S, Hong M, Rozenblit JW (2019) Proficiency based planner for safe path planning and applications in surgical training. Simul Ser 51:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez P, Thomas F, Torras C (2001) 3D collision detection: a survey. Comput Graph 25:269–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawaguchi K, Egi H, Hattori M et al (2014) Validation of a novel basic virtual reality simulator, the LAP-X, for training basic laparoscopic skills. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 23:287–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan ZA, Kamal N, Hameed A et al (2017) SmartSIM - a virtual reality simulator for laparoscopy training using a generic physics engine. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 13:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim YS, Collins M, Bulmer W, et al (2013) Haptics assisted training (HAT) System for children’s handwriting. In: 2013 World Haptics conference, WHC 2013, pp 559–564

  • Korndorffer JR, Bellows CF, Tekian A et al (2012) Effective home laparoscopic simulation training: a preliminary evaluation of an improved training paradigm. Am J Surg 203:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunkler K (2006) The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robit Comput Assist Surg 2:203–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahanas V, Georgiou E, Loukas C (2016) Surgical simulation training systems: box trainers, virtual reality and augmented reality simulators. Int J Adv Robot Autom 1:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahanas V, Loukas C, Smailis N, Georgiou E (2015) A novel augmented reality simulator for skills assessment in minimal invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 29:2224–2234

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau WY, Leow CK, Li AKC (1997) History of endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery. World J Surg 21:444–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis M (2004) Moneyball: the art of winning an unfair game. WW Norton & Company

  • Liao H, Inomata T, Sakuma I, Dohi T (2010) 3-D augmented reality for MRI-guided surgery using integral videography autostereoscopic image overlay. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57:1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2010.2040278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loukas C, Lahanas V, Georgiou E (2013) An integrated approach to endoscopic instrument tracking for augmented reality applications in surgical simulation training. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 9

  • Maciel A, Liu Y, Ahn W et al (2008) Development of the VBLaSTTM: a virtual basic laparoscopic skill trainer. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 4:131–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Makary MA, Daniel M (2016) Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 353:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins JMP, Pinto RRV, Cavazzola LT (2015) White box: low cost box for laparoscopic training. Arq Bras Cir Dig 28:204–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier U, López O, Monserrat C et al (2005) Real-time deformable models for surgery simulation: a survey. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 77:183–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 77:1321–1329

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram P, Takemura H, Utsumi A, Kishino F (1995) Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator Telepresence Technol 2351:282–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll M, Kavraki LE, Şucan IA (2012) The open motion planning library. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19:72–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno MR, Marban A, Rojas JC, et al (2012) Simulator for laparoscopic surgery with open source approach. In: International conference on design and PROcesses for MEdical Devices, pp 207–210

  • Oropesa I, Chmarra MK, Sánchez-González P et al (2013) Relevance of motion-related assessment metrics in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 20:299–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Oropesa I, Sánchez-González P, Chmarra MK et al (2014) Supervised classification of psychomotor competence in minimally invasive surgery based on instruments motion analysis. Surg Endosc 28:657–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Oropesa I, Sánchez-González P, Lamata P et al (2011) Methods and tools for objective assessment of psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Res 171:e81–e95

    Google Scholar 

  • Oussi N, Loukas C, Kjellin A et al (2018) Video analysis in basic skills training: a way to expand the value and use of BlackBox training? Surg Endosc 32:87–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Overtoom EM, Horeman T, Jansen FW, et al (2018) Haptic feedback, force feedback, and force-sensing in simulation training for laparoscopy: a systematic overview. J Surg Educ

  • Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL et al (2009) the role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res 156:312–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng KS, Hong M, Rozenblit JW (2017) Learning-based object tracking for transfer tasks in laparoscopy training. EuroCast 2017:254–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Prada R, Payandeh S (2005) A study on design and analysis of virtual fixtures for cutting in training environments. In: Proceedings - 1st Joint Eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems; World Haptics conference, WHC 2005, pp 375–380

  • Rahman MA, Mahmud P, Mashuk MS (2013) Augmented and virtual reality based approaches in minimally invasive surgery training. In: 2013 International conference on informatics, electronics and vision (ICIEV), pp 1–4

  • Riojas M, Feng C, Hamilton A, Rozenblit J (2011) Knowledge elicitation for performance assessment in a computerized surgical training system. Appl Soft Comput J 11:3697–3708

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter ME, Scott DJ (2007) Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic Surgery. Surg Innov 14:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen J, Brown JD, Barreca M, et al (2002) The blue DRAGON - A system for monitoring the kinematics and the dynamics of endoscopic tools in minimally invasive surgery for objective laparoscopic skill assessment. In: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. pp 412–418

  • Ruparel RK, Brahmbhatt RD, Dove JC et al (2014) “ITrainers” - Novel and inexpensive alternatives to traditional laparoscopic box trainers. Urology 83:116–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruthenbeck GS, Reynolds KJ (2013) Virtual reality surgical simulator software development tools. J Simul 7:101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury K, Conti F, Barbagli F (2004) Haptic rendering: Introductory concepts. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 24:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkini MW, Doarn CR, Kiehl N et al (2010) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic training using the LapMentor II. J Endourology 24:99–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Schijven M, Jakimowicz J (2002) Face-, expert, and referent validity of the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator. Surg Endosc 16:1764–1770

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamsunder SC, Manivannan M (2008) Haptic guided laparoscopy simulation improves learning curve. Stud Health Technol Inform 132:454–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe BA, Machaidze Z, Ogan K (2005) Randomized comparison of standard laparoscopic trainer to novel, at-home, low-cost, camera-less laparoscopic trainer. Urology 66:50–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soper NJ, Fried GM (2008) The fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery: its time has come. Bull Am Coll Surg 93:30–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Soyinka AS, Schollmeyer T, Meinhold-Heerlein I et al (2008) Enhancing laparoscopic performance with the LTS3E: a computerized hybrid physical reality simulator. Fertil Steril 90:1988–1994

    Google Scholar 

  • Speicher M, Hall BD, Nebeling M (2019) What is mixed reality? In: Conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–15

  • Spruit EN, Band GPH, Hamming JF, Ridderinkhof KR (2013) Optimal training design for procedural motor skills: a review and application to laparoscopic surgery. Psychol Res 78:878–891

    Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar AN, Briggs TP, Kelly JD, Nathan S (2017) Training in robotic surgery—An overview. Curr Urol Rep 18

  • Stylopoulos N, Cotin S, Maithel SK et al (2004) Computer-enhanced laparoscopic training system (CELTS): bridging the gap. Surg Endosc 18:782–789

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagawa K, Tanaka HT, Kurumi Y et al (2013) Laparoscopic surgery simulator using first person view and guidance force. Stud Health Technol Inform 184:431–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Tendick F, Downes M, Goktekin T et al (2000) A virtual environment testbed for training laparoscopic surgical skills. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 9:236–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo CL, Burdet E, Lim HP (2002) A robotic teacher of Chinese handwriting. In: Proceedings - 10th symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, HAPTICS 2002, pp 335–341

  • Teschner M, Kimmerle S, Heidelberger B et al (2005) Collision detection for deformable objects. Comput Graph Forum 24:61–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Thinggaard E, Bjerrum F, Strandbygaard J et al (2015) Validity of a cross-specialty test in basic laparoscopic techniques (TABLT). Br J Surg 102:1106–1113. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Meijden OAJ, Schijven MP (2009) The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc 23:1180–1190

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle KR, McClusky DA, Gallagher AG, Smith CD (2005) Construct validation of the ProMIS simulator using a novel laparoscopic suturing task. Surg Endosc 19:1227–1231

    Google Scholar 

  • Våpenstad C, Hofstad EF, Bø LE et al (2013) Limitations of haptic feedback devices on construct validity of the LapSim® virtual reality simulator. Surg Endosc 27:1386–1396

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG et al (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190:107–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdaasdonk EGG, Stassen LPS, Monteny LJ, Dankelman J (2006) Validation of a new basic virtual reality simulator for training of basic endoscopic skills: the SIMENDO. Surg Endosc 20:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0230-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner A, Rozenblit JW (2017) Augmented reality visual guidance for spatial perception in the computer assisted surgical trainer. In: Proceedings of the symposium on modeling and simulation in medicine. Society for Computer Simulation International, pp 855–866

  • Wang F, Burdet E, Vuillemin R, Bleuler H (2005) Knot-tying with visual and force feedback for VR laparoscopic training. In: 2005 IEEE engineering in medicine and biology 27th annual conference, pp 5778–5781

  • Westebring – van der Putten EP, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ, Dankelman J, (2008) Haptics in minimally invasive surgery – a review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17:3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MS, Middlebrook A, Sutton C et al (1997) MIST VR: A virtual reality trainer for laparoscopic surgery assesses performance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 79:403–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Westermann R, Dick C (2015) A survey of physically based simulation of cuts in deformable bodies. Comput Graph Forum 34:161–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang T, Liu J, Huang W et al (2013) Mechanism of a learning robot manipulator for laparoscopic surgical training. Intell Auton Syst 2:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiasemidou M, de Siqueira J, Tomlinson J et al (2017) “Take-home” box trainers are an effective alternative to virtual reality simulators. J Surg Res 213:69–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon R, Del Junco M, Kaplan A et al (2015) Development of a novel iPad-based laparoscopic trainer and comparison with a standard laparoscopic trainer for basic laparoscopic skills testing. J Surg Educ 72:41–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahiri M, Booton R, Siu K-C, Nelson CA (2016) Design and evaluation of a portable laparoscopic training system using virtual reality. J Med Device 11:011002

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang A, Hünerbein M, Dai Y et al (2008) Construct validity testing of a laparoscopic surgery simulator (Lap Mentor®): evaluation of surgical skill with a virtual laparoscopic training simulator. Surg Endosc 22:1440–1444

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Zhong Y, Gu C (2018) Deformable models for surgical simulation: a survey. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 11:143–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziv A, Small SD, Wolpe PR (2000) Patient safety and simulation-based medical education. Med Teach 22:489–495

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1622589 “Computer Guided Laparoscopy Training.” Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Arizona, 1230 E. Speedway Boulevard, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Minsik Hong & Jerzy W. Rozenblit

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA

    Jerzy W. Rozenblit & Allan J. Hamilton

Authors
  1. Minsik Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerzy W. Rozenblit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan J. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minsik Hong.

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

Hong, M., Rozenblit, J.W. & Hamilton, A.J. Simulation-based surgical training systems in laparoscopic surgery: a current review. Virtual Reality 25, 491–510 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00469-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00469-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation