Origins of Robotic Surgery: From Skepticism to Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The uses of robotics in surgery were hypothesized as far back as 1967, but it took nearly 30 years and the nation's largest agency, the Department of Defense, in conjunction with innovative startups and established research agencies to complete the first fully functional multipurpose surgical robot. Currently, the most prominently available multipurpose robotic surgery system with US Food and Drug Administration approval is Intuitive Surgical Inc.'s da Vinci Surgical System, which is found in operating rooms across the globe. Although now ubiquitous for minimally invasive surgery, early surgical robot prototypes were specialty focused. Originally, multipurpose robotic systems were intended for long-distance trauma surgery in battlefield settings. While there were impressive feats of telesurgery, the marketable focus has veered from this goal. Initially developed through SRI International and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, surgical robotics reached private industry through two major competitors, who later merged. METHODS: A thorough search of PubMed, Clinical Key, EBSCO, Ovid, ProQuest, and industry manufacturers' websites yielded 62 relevant articles, of which 51 were evaluated in this review. CONCLUSION: We analyzed the literature and referred to primary sources by conducting interviews with present and historical leaders in the field to yield a detailed chronology of surgical robotics development. As minimally invasive robotic procedures are becoming the standard of care, it is crucial to comprehensively document their historical context and importance as an emerging and evolving discipline.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Three Virtual-Reality Robotic Surgery Simulators.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are several different commercially available virtual-reality robotic simulators, but very little comparative data. We compared the face and content validity of 3 robotic surgery simulators and their pricing and availability. METHODS: Fifteen participants completed one task on each of the following: dV-Trainer (dVT; Mimic Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA), da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS; Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), and RobotiX Mentor (RM; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, South Carolina, USA). Participants completed previously validated face and content validity questionnaires and a demographics questionnaire. Statistical analysis was then performed on the scores. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 29.6 (range, 25-41) years. Most were surgical trainees, having performed a mean of 8.6 robotic primary surgeries. For face validity, ANOVA showed a significant difference favoring the dVSS over the dVT (P = .001), and no significant difference between the RM, dVSS, and dVT. Content validity revealed similar results, with a significant difference between the dVSS and dVT (P = .021), a trend toward a difference between the RM and dVT (P = .092), and no difference between the dVSS and RM (P = .99). CONCLUSION: All simulators demonstrated evidence of face and content validity, with significantly higher scores for the dVSS; it is also the least costly ($80,000 for the simulator), although it is frequently unavailable because of intra-operative use. The dVT and RM have similar face and content validity, are slightly more expensive, and are readily available.