Background. The amount of direct hand-tool-tissue interaction and feedback in minimally invasive surgery varies from being attenuated in laparoscopy to being completely absent in robotic minimally invasive surgery. The role of haptic feedback during surgical skill acquisition and its emphasis in training have been a constant source of controversy. This review discusses the major developments in haptic simulation as they relate to surgical performance and the current research questions that remain unanswered. Search Strategy. An in-depth review of the literature was performed using PubMed. Results. A total of 198 abstracts were returned based on our search criteria. Three major areas of research were identified, including advancements in 1 of the 4 components of haptic systems, evaluating the effectiveness of haptic integration in simulators, and improvements to haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Conclusions. Force feedback is the best method for tissue identification in minimally invasive surgery and haptic feedback provides the greatest benefit to surgical novices in the early stages of their training. New technology has improved our ability to capture, playback and enhance to utility of haptic cues in simulated surgery. Future research should focus on deciphering how haptic training in surgical education can increase performance, safety, and improve training efficiency.
BholatOSHaluckRSMurrayWBGormanPJKrummelTM. Tactile feedback is present during minimally invasive surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:349-355.
2.
KlatzkyRLWuB. Visual-haptic compliance perception. In: Di LucaM, ed. Multisensory Softness: Perceived Compliance From Multiple Sources of Information. London, England: Springer; 2014:17-30.
3.
KerrR. Intersensory integration: a kinesthetic bias. Percept Mot Skills. 1994;79(3 pt 1):1068-1070.
4.
van der MeijdenOASchijvenMP. The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1180-1190.
5.
ZhengBMacKenzieCL. Kinematics of reaching and grasping with a tool. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2007;51:1353-1357.
6.
LedermanSJKlatzkyRL. Haptic perception: a tutorial. Attent Percept Psychophys. 2009;71:1439-1459.
7.
FeyginDKeehnerMTendickR. Haptic guidance: experimental evaluation of a haptic training method for a perceptual motor skill. Proc Symp Haptic Interface Virtual Environ Teleoperator Syst. 2002:40-47.
8.
BasdoganCDeSKimJMuniyandiMKimHSrinivasanMA. Haptics in minimally invasive surgical simulation and training. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2004;24:56-64.
9.
SingapoguRBDuBoseSLongLO. Salient haptic skills trainer: initial validation of a novel simulator for training force-based laparoscopic surgical skills. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1653-1661.
10.
GallagerAGO’SullivanGC. Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation. Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Springer; 2012.
11.
StromPHedmanLSarnaLKjellinAWredmarkTFellander-TsaiL. Early exposure to haptic feedback enhances performance in surgical simulator training: a prospective randomized crossover study in surgical residents. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1383-1388.
12.
PicodGJambonACVinatierDDuboisP. What can the operator actually feel when performing a laparoscopy?Surg Endosc. 2005;19:95-100.
13.
SatavaRM. Historical review of surgical simulation—a personal perspective. World J Surg. 2008;32:141-148.
14.
BrinkmanWMTjiamIMBuzinkSN. Assessment of basic laparoscopic skills on virtual reality simulator or box trainer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3584-3590.
15.
NajarianSDargahiJMehriziA. Haptics application in surgical simulation. In: Artificial Tactile Sensing in Biomedical Engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2009:221-230.
16.
SingapoguRBPaganoCCBurgTCDornPGZachariaRLeeDB. Perceptually salient haptic rendering for enhancing kinesthetic perception in virtual environments. J Multimodal User Interfac. 2014;8:319-331.
17.
RosenJHannafordBRichardsCGSinananMN. Markov modeling of minimally invasive surgery based on tool/tissue interaction and force/torque signatures for evaluating surgical skills. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2001;48:579-591.
18.
BeccaniMDi NataliCSlikerLJSchoenJARentschlerMEValdastriP. Wireless tissue palpation for intraoperative detection of lumps in the soft tissue. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014;61:353-361.
19.
OmataSMurayamaYConstantinouCE. Real time robotic tactile sensor system for the determination of the physical properties of biomaterials. Sens Actuators A Phys. 2004;112:278-285.
20.
den BoerKTHerderJLSjoerdsmaWMeijerDWGoumaDJStassenHG. Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:869-873.
21.
CuljatMKingCHFrancoMLBisleyJWDutsonEGrundfestWS. Pneumatic balloon actuators for tactile feedback in robotic surgery. Ind Rob. 2008;35:449-455.
22.
TiwanaMIRedmondSJLovellNH. A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering. Sens Actuator A Phys. 2012;179:17-31.
23.
LamataPGomezEJSanchez-MargalloFMLamataFdel PozoFUsonJ. Tissue consistency perception in laparoscopy to define the level of fidelity in virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1368-1375.
24.
SalkiniMWDoarnCRKiehlNBroderickTJDonovanJFGaitondeK. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic training using the LapMentor II. J Endourol. 2010;24:99-102.
25.
HagenMEMeehanJJInanIMorelP. Visual clues act as a substitute for haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1505-1508.
26.
KoehnJKKuchenbeckerKJ. Surgeons and non-surgeons prefer haptic feedback of instrument vibrations during robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2970-2983.
LamataPGomezEJHernandezFLOltra PastorASanchez-MargalloFMDel Pozo GuerreroF. Understanding perceptual boundaries in laparoscopic surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55:866-873.
29.
WagnerCRStylopoulosNJacksonPGHoweRD. The benefit of force feedback in surgery: examination of blunt dissection. Presence Teleop Virtual Environ. 2007;16:252-262.
30.
TholeyGDesaiJPCastellanosAE. Force feedback plays a significant role in minimally invasive surgery: results and analysis. Ann Surg. 2005;241:102-109.
31.
van DongenKWTournoijEvan der ZeeDCSchijvenMPBroedersIA. Construct validity of the LapSim: can the LapSim virtual reality simulator distinguish between novices and experts?Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1413-1417.
32.
PanaitLAkkaryEBellRLRobertsKEDudrickSJDuffyAJ. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res. 2009;156:312-316.
33.
SingapoguRBPaganoCCBurgTCBurgKJPrabhuVV. Role of haptic feedback in a basic laparoscopic task requiring hand-eye coordination. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:591-593.
34.
YiasemidouMGlassmanDVasasPBadianiSPatelB. Faster simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy with haptic feedback technology. Open Access Surg. 2011;4:39-44.
35.
PerrenotCPerezMTranN. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer(®) is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2587-2593.
36.
ChmarraMKDankelmanJvan den DobbelsteenJJJansenFW. Force feedback and basic laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2140-2148.
37.
CaoCGZhouMJonesDBSchwaitzbergSD. Can surgeons think and operate with haptics at the same time?J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:1564-1569.
38.
BotdenSMBuzinkSNSchijvenMPJakimowiczJJ. 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;31:764-772.
39.
ZhouMTseSDereviankoAJonesDBSchwaitzbergSDCaoCG. Effect of haptic feedback in laparoscopic surgery skill acquisition. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1128-1134.
40.
HoremanTvan DelftFBlikkendaalMDDankelmanJvan den DobbelsteenJJJansenFW. Learning from visual force feedback in box trainers: tissue manipulation in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1961-1970.
41.
ChellaliAZhangLSankaranarayananG. Validation of the VBLaST peg transfer task: a first step toward an alternate training standard. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2856-2862.
42.
TrejosALPatelRVMalthanerRASchlachtaCM. Development of force-based metrics for skills assessment in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2106-2119.
43.
TavakoliMPatelRVMoallemM. Haptic interaction in robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a sensorized end-effector. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1:53-63.
44.
CundyTPGattasNEYangGZDarziANajmaldinAS. Experience related factors compensate for haptic loss in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28:532-538.
45.
Moradi DalvandMShirinzadehBNahavandiSSmithJ. Effects of realistic force feedback in a robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery system. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2014;23:127-135.
