Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceiving haptic feedback in virtual reality simulators

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To improve patient safety, training of psychomotor laparoscopic skills is often done on virtual reality (VR) simulators outside the operating room. Haptic sensations have been found to influence psychomotor performance in laparoscopy. The emulation of haptic feedback is thus an important aspect of VR simulation. Some VR simulators try to simulate these sensations with handles equipped with haptic feedback. We conducted a survey on how laparoscopic surgeons perceive handles with and without haptic feedback.

Methods

Surgeons with different levels of experience in laparoscopy were asked to test two handles: Xitact IHP with haptic feedback and Xitact ITP without haptic feedback (Mentice AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), connected to the LapSim (Surgical Science AB, Sweden) VR simulator. They performed two tasks on the simulator before answering 12 questions regarding the two handles. The surgeons were not informed about the differences in the handles.

Results

A total of 85 % of the 20 surgeons who participated in the survey claimed that it is important that handles with haptic feedback feel realistic. Ninety percent of the surgeons preferred the handles without haptic feedback. The friction in the handles with haptic feedback was perceived to be as in reality (5 %) or too high (95 %). Regarding the handles without haptic feedback, the friction was perceived as in reality (45 %), too low (50 %), or too high (5 %). A total of 85 % of the surgeons thought that the handle with haptic feedback attempts to simulate the resistance offered by tissue to deformation. Ten percent thought that the handle succeeds in doing so.

Conclusions

The surveyed surgeons believe that haptic feedback is an important feature on VR simulators; however, they preferred the handles without haptic feedback because they perceived the handles with haptic feedback to add additional friction, making them unrealistic and not mechanically transparent.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Hove PD, Tuijthof GJ, Verdaasdonk EG, Stassen LP, Dankelman J (2010) Objective assessment of technical surgical skills. Br J Surg 97:972–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reznick RK, MacRae H (2006) Teaching surgical skills—changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 355:2664–2669

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gallagher AG, Traynor O (2008) Simulation in surgery: opportunity or threat? Ir J Med Sci 177:283–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Aggarwal R, Mytton OT, Derbrew M, Hananel D, Heydenburg M, Issenberg B, MacAulay C, Mancini ME, Morimoto T, Soper N, Ziv A, Reznick R (2010) Training and simulation for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 19(suppl 2):i34–i43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu A, Tendick F, Cleary K, Kaufmann C (2003) A survey of surgical simulation: applications, technology, and education. Presence Teleop Virt 12:599–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Seymour NE (2008) VR to OR: a review of the evidence that virtual reality simulation improves operating room performance. World J Surg 32:182–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schijven M, Jakimowicz J (2003) Virtual reality surgical laparoscopic simulators. Surg Endosc 17:1943–1950

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Satava RM (2001) Surgical education and surgical simulation. World J Surg 25:1484–1489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Picod G, Jambon AC, Vinatier D, Dubois P (2005) What can the operator actually feel when performing a laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 19:95–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ottermo MV, Ovstedal M, Lango T, Stavdahl O, Yavuz Y, Johansen TA, Marvik R (2006) The role of tactile feedback in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16:390–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lamata P, Gomez EJ, Sanchez-Margallo FM, Lamata F, Antolin M, Rodriguez S, Oltra A, Uson J (2006) Study of laparoscopic forces perception for defining simulation fidelity. Stud Health Technol Inform 119:288–292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Meijden OA, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tholey G, Desai JP, Castellanos AE (2005) Force feedback plays a significant role in minimally invasive surgery: results and analysis. Ann Surg 241:102–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bholat OS, Haluck RS, Murray WB, Gorman PJ, Krummel TM (1999) Tactile feedback is present during minimally invasive surgery. J Am Coll Surg 189:349–355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Westebring-van der Putten EP, van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Goossens RH, Jakimowicz JJ, Dankelman J (2009) Effect of laparoscopic grasper force transmission ratio on grasp control. Surg Endosc 23:818–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van den Dobbelsteen JJ, Schooleman A, Dankelman J (2007) Friction dynamics of trocars. Surg Endosc 21:1338–1343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sjoerdsma W, Herder JL, Horward MJ, Jansen A, Bannenberg JJG, Grimbergen CA (1997) Force transmission of laparoscopic grasping instruments. Minim Invasive Ther 6:274–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Basdogan C, De S, Kim J, Muniyandi M, Kim H, Srinivasan MA (2004) Haptics in minimally invasive surgical simulation and training. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 24:56–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lamata P, Gomez EJ, Bello F, Kneebone RL, Aggarwal R, Lamata F (2006) Conceptual framework for laparoscopic VR simulators. IEEE Comput Graph 26:69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. El Saddik A (ed) (2012) Haptics rendering and applications. InTech, faridabad, p 246

    Google Scholar 

  23. Salkini MW, Doarn CR, Kiehl N, Broderick TJ, Donovan JF, Gaitonde K (2010) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic training using the LapMentor II. J Endourol 24:99–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL, Roberts KE, Dudrick SJ, Duffy AJ (2009) The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res 156:312–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thompson JR, Leonard AC, Doarn CR, Roesch MJ, Broderick TJ (2011) Limited value of haptics in virtual reality laparoscopic cholecystectomy training. Surg Endosc 25:1107–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Okamura AM (2009) Haptic feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Curr Opin Urol 19:102–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou M, Tse S, Derevianko A, Jones DB, Schwaitzberg SD, Cao CG (2012) Effect of haptic feedback in laparoscopic surgery skill acquisition. Surg Endosc 26:1128–1134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Strom P, Hedman L, Sarna L, Kjellin A, Wredmark T, Fellander-Tsai L (2006) Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents. Surg Endosc 20:1383–1388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Yiasemidou M, Glassman D, Vasas P, Badiani S, Patel B (2011) Faster simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Open Access Surg 4:39–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Buzink SN, Goossens RH, De Ridder H, Jakimowicz JJ (2010) Training of basic laparoscopy skills on SimSurgery SEP. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vapenstad C, Hofstad EF, Bo LE, Chmarra MK, Kuhry E, Johnsen G, Marvik R, Lango T (2012) Limitations of haptic feedback devices on construct validity on the LapSim® virtual reality simulator. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2621-9

  33. Vapenstad C, Buzink SN (2012) Procedural virtual reality simulation in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2503-1

  34. Ro CY, Toumpoulis IK, Ashton RC Jr, Jebara T, Schulman C, Todd GJ, Derose JJ Jr, McGinty JJ (2005) The LapSim: a learning environment for both experts and novices. Stud Health Technol Inform 111:414–417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Botden SM, Buzink SN, Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ (2007) 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 31:764–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA 3rd, Ramel S, Smith CD, Arvidsson D (2007) Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg 193:797–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van Dongen KW, Tournoij E, van der Zee DC, Schijven MP, Broeders IA (2007) Construct validity of the LapSim: can the LapSim virtual reality simulator distinguish between novices and experts? Surg Endosc 21:1413–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Aggarwal R, Tully A, Grantcharov T, Larsen CR, Miskry T, Farthing A, Darzi A (2006) Virtual reality simulation training can improve technical skills during laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy. BJOG 113:1382–1387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Eriksen JR, Blirup D, Kristiansen VB, Funch-Jensen P, Darzi A (2006) An evidence-based virtual reality training program for novice laparoscopic surgeons. Ann Surg 244:310–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Larsen CR, Grantcharov T, Aggarwal R, Tully A, Sorensen JL, Dalsgaard T, Ottesen B (2006) Objective assessment of gynecologic laparoscopic skills using the LapSimGyn virtual reality simulator. Surg Endosc 20:1460–1466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hassan I, Maschuw K, Rothmund M, Koller M, Gerdes B (2006) Novices in surgery are the target group of a virtual reality training laboratory. Eur Surg Res 38:109–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Woodrum DT, Andreatta PB, Yellamanchilli RK, Feryus L, Gauger PG, Minter RM (2006) Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator. Am J Surg 191:28–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Eriksen JR, Grantcharov T (2005) Objective assessment of laparoscopic skills using a virtual reality stimulator. Surg Endosc 19:1216–1219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Langelotz C, Kilian M, Paul C, Schwenk W (2005) LapSim virtual reality laparoscopic simulator reflects clinical experience in German surgeons. Langenbecks Arch Surg 390:534–537

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Sherman V, Feldman LS, Stanbridge D, Kazmi R, Fried GM (2005) Assessing the learning curve for the acquisition of laparoscopic skills on a virtual reality simulator. Surg Endosc 19:678–682

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Duffy AJ, Hogle NJ, McCarthy H, Lew JI, Egan A, Christos P, Fowler DL (2005) Construct validity for the LAPSIM laparoscopic surgical simulator. Surg Endosc 19:401–405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. van Dongen KW, Ahlberg G, Bonavina L, Carter FJ, Grantcharov TP, Hyltander A, Schijven MP, Stefani A, van der Zee DC, Broeders IA (2011) European consensus on a competency-based virtual reality training program for basic endoscopic surgical psychomotor skills. Surg Endosc 25(1):166–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hassan I, Sitter H, Schlosser K, Zielke A, Rothmund M, Gerdes B (2005) A virtual reality simulator for objective assessment of surgeons’ laparoscopic skill. Chirurg 76:151–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Danila R, Gerdes B, Ulrike H, Dominguez Fernandez E, Hassan I (2009) Objective evaluation of minimally invasive surgical skills for transplantation. Surgeons using a virtual reality simulator. Chirurgia (Bucur) 104:181–185

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Tanoue K, Uemura M, Kenmotsu H, Ieiri S, Konishi K, Ohuchida K, Onimaru M, Nagao Y, Kumashiro R, Tomikawa M, Hashizume M (2010) Skills assessment using a virtual reality simulator, LapSim, after training to develop fundamental skills for endoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Liu P, Zheng W, Chebbi B (2007) Surgical simulation with high-fidelity haptic feedback. Int J Robot Autom 22:59–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hofstad EF, Vapenstad C, Chmarra MK, Lango T, Kuhry E, Marvik R (2012) A study of pshycomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differntiates expert and non-expert performance. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2524-9

  54. Munz Y, Kumar BD, Moorthy K, Bann S, Darzi A (2004) Laparoscopic virtual reality and box trainers: is one superior to the other? Surg Endosc 18:485–494

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Tanoue K, Ieiri S, Konishi K, Yasunaga T, Okazaki K, Yamaguchi S, Yoshida D, Kakeji Y, Hashizume M (2008) Effectiveness of endoscopic surgery training for medical students using a virtual reality simulator versus a box trainer: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 22:985–990

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Hiemstra E, Terveer EM, Chmarra MK, Dankelman J, Jansen FW (2011) Virtual reality in laparoscopic skills training: is haptic feedback replaceable? Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 20(3):179–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Avgerinos DV, Goodell KH, Waxberg S, Cao CG, Schwaitzberg SD (2005) Comparison of the sensitivity of physical and virtual laparoscopic surgical training simulators to the user’s level of experience. Surg Endosc 19:1211–1215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Youngblood PL, Srivastava S, Curet M, Heinrichs WL, Dev P, Wren SM (2005) Comparison of training on two laparoscopic simulators and assessment of skills transfer to surgical performance. J Am Coll Surg 200:546–551

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all those who participated in the study. The work has been supported by the National Centre for Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery, SINTEF, the National Competence Services for Ultrasound and Image guided Therapy, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; and the Marie Curie ITN EU project “Integrated Interventional Imaging Operating System” (project 238802).

Disclosures

C. Våpenstad, E. F. Hofstad, T. Langø, R. Mårvik, and M. K. Chmarra have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Technology, SINTEF Technology and Society, PB 4760 Sluppen, 7465, Trondheim, Norway

    Cecilie Våpenstad, Erlend Fagertun Hofstad & Thomas Langø

  2. National Competence Services for Ultrasound and Image guided Therapy, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Thomas Langø

  3. Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Medical Faculty, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    Ronald Mårvik

  4. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Ronald Mårvik

  5. National Centre for Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Ronald Mårvik

  6. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Medical Faculty, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    Magdalena Karolina Chmarra

Authors
  1. Cecilie Våpenstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erlend Fagertun Hofstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Langø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald Mårvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Magdalena Karolina Chmarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilie Våpenstad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Våpenstad, C., Hofstad, E.F., Langø, T. et al. Perceiving haptic feedback in virtual reality simulators. Surg Endosc 27, 2391–2397 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2745-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2745-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation