• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Limited Value of Haptics in Virtual Reality Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Training

Limited Value of Haptics in Virtual Reality Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Training

INTRODUCTION: Haptics is an expensive addition to virtual reality simulators, and the added value to training has not been proven. This study evaluated the benefit of haptics in virtual reality laparoscopic surgery training of novices.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The Lap Mentor II (Simbionix, Cleveland, OH) haptic virtual reality simulator was used in the study. Laparoscopic novice students were randomly placed in three groups: control (n=10), haptics trained (n=6) and non-haptics trained (n=4). The control group performed the nine basic laparoscopy tasks and four cholecystectomy procedural tasks one time with haptics engaged at the default setting. The haptics trained group was sequentially trained to proficiency in the basic tasks and then performed each of the procedural tasks one time with haptics engaged. The non-haptics group used the same training protocol except haptics was disengaged. Proficiency was to previously published expert values. Each group was assessed in the performance of ten laparoscopic cholecystectomies (alternating with and without haptics). Performance was measured via automatically collected simulator data. Unpaired student t-test was used to compare the groups. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between training and control groups with regard to gender, age, hand dominance, video game experience, musical instrument experience, surgical experience, or simulator experience.
In basic task training, the number of attempts to achieve expert proficiency did not differ between haptics and non-haptics groups.
In simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the average performance of the non-haptics group on ten cholecystectomies was superior to the haptics group in total time, time to extract gallbladder, time cautery is applied without appropriate contact with adhesions, total cautery time, efficiency of cautery, safe cautery, number of movements of the right instrument, and total path length of the right instrument. The haptics and non-haptics groups both outperformed the control group in total time, time to extract gallbladder, time cautery is applied without appropriate contact with adhesions, total cautery time, efficiency of cautery, number of non-cauterized bleeding, number of movements of the left instrument, total path length of left instrument, and average speed of left instrument. In addition, the non-haptics group outperformed the control group on safe clipping, safe cutting, number of perforations, number of movements of right instrument, total path length of right instrument, and average speed of right instrument.
CONCLUSIONS: Haptics does not improve the efficiency or effectiveness of LapMentor II virtual reality laparoscopic surgery training. Subjects trained to the same metrics without haptics performed simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomies better than subjects trained with haptics. Limited benefit and significant cost of haptics suggests haptics should not routinely be included in virtual reality laparoscopic surgery training. Further research is recommended to determine the value of haptics in virtual reality training of specific procedures primarily performed using the sense of touch.


Session: Podium Presentation

Program Number: S003

68

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals