Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2026

08:21
Utilizing a 3D Printed Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication Model to Shorten a Resident's Learning Curve
Published on: August 15, 2025
Face validity study of the ProMIS augmented reality laparoscopic suturing simulator
S M B I Botden1, J T M Berlage, M P Schijven
1Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Surgical Technology International
|September 20, 2008
Summary
The ProMIS Augmented Reality simulator effectively trains laparoscopic suturing skills. Both expert and novice surgeons found it realistic and valuable for surgical education.
Area of Science:
- Surgical simulation
- Medical education technology
- Augmented reality in surgery
Background:
- Laparoscopic surgery requires specialized training to minimize errors.
- Simulation offers a safe environment for surgical skill acquisition.
- Augmented Reality (AR) simulators are emerging tools for surgical training.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the face validity of the ProMIS AR laparoscopic simulator.
- To assess its utility in training surgical suturing skills.
- To compare expert and novice surgeon perceptions of the simulator.
Main Methods:
- A 12-item Likert scale questionnaire was administered to 50 surgeons (23 experts, 27 novices).
- Participants rated the simulator's realism, tactile feedback, ergonomics, and design.
- Non-parametric statistics were used to analyze differences between groups.
Main Results:
- High consensus existed among both groups, rating ProMIS as useful for teaching suturing skills (mean scores ~4.9/5).
- Participants found the simulator realistic with good tactile feedback and technique training.
- Significant differences were noted between expert and novice groups regarding ergonomics and design.
Conclusions:
- The ProMIS AR laparoscopic simulator demonstrates strong face validity as a valuable tool for surgical training.
- It is perceived as effective for teaching laparoscopic suturing skills by both experienced and less experienced surgeons.
- While design and ergonomics perceptions differed between groups, overall utility was affirmed.