Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 567–574 | Cite as

Design methodology for a simulator of a robotic surgical system

  • Danielle L. JulianEmail author
  • Roger D. Smith
  • Alyssa D. S. Tanaka
  • Ariel Dubin
Original Article


Traditional spinal surgery procedures are completed with limited direct visualization. This imposes limitations on the surgeon’s ability to place screws into the spine. The Mazor Renaissance robotic system was developed to improve the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion. Current training for this device comes with significant constraints. This suggests that a simulation-based solution may be valuable to the current training. This paper describes efforts to apply the theories of human–system integration (HSI) and instructional system design to define the requirements for a design of a simulator for specific robotic surgery system. From this, an instructional plan was conducted, to which an HSI-driven design document for a simulation system was developed. This paper describes the efforts to create a design method for a simulator of a specific robotic surgery system and provides a blended design process, which can be used during the early life cycle of any surgical simulation design.


Robotic surgery simulator Simulator design Spine robot Human system integration Instructional design 



The authors wish to thank the following representatives of Mazor Robotics, Inc., for their assistance in collecting data and images, as well as verifying the accuracy of the contents of the paper: Robert Breedlove and Christopher Prentice, Mazor Robotics, Inc. Mazor Renaissance Guidance System 2018 © Mazor Robotics, Inc. used with permission.


This work was supported by the U.S. Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (Grant #: W81XWH-11-2-0158).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Danielle Julian declares she has no conflict of interest. Roger Smith declares he has no conflict of interest. Alyssa Tanaka declares she has no conflict of interest. Ariel Dubin declares she has no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Fuchs KH (2002) Minimally invasive surgery. Endoscopy 34(02):154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hu X, Ohnmeiss D, Lieberman I (2013) Robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement: lessons learned from the first 102 patients. Eur Spine J 22:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davne SH, Myers DL (1992) Complications of lumbar spinal fusion with transpedicular instrumentation. Spine 17(6):S184–S189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumenthal S, Gill K (1993) Complications of the Wiltse pedicle screw fixation system. Spine 18(13):1867–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Winter RB (1999) Complications associated with pedicle screws placement. J Bone Jt Surg 81(11):1519–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R, Pfeiffer M, Horne D, Silberstein B, Shoham M (2010) Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine 35(24):2109–2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuo KL, Su YF, Wu CH, Tsai CY, Chang CH, Lin CL, Tsai TH (2016) Assessing the intraoperative accuracy of pedicle screw placement by using a bone-mounted miniature robot system through secondary registration. PLoS One 11(4):e0153235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arthur W, Bennett W, Stanush PL, McNelly TL (1998) Factors that influence skill decay and retention: a quantitative review and analysis. Hum Perform 11(1):57–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiely DJ, Gotlieb WH, Lau S, Zeng X, Samouelian V, Ramanakumar AV, Zakrzewski H et al (2015) Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial. J Robot Surg 9:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hung AJ, Jayaratna IS, Teruya K, Desai MM, Gill IS, Goh AC (2013) Comparative assessment of three standardized robotic surgery training methods. BJU Int 112(6):864–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hung AJ et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186(3):1019–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kenney A, Wszolek F, Gould J, Libertino A, Moinzadeh A (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73(6):1288–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 76(2):357–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Booher HR (2003) Handbook of human systems integration. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dick W, Carey L, Carey J (2015) Systematic design of instruction, 8th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alaraj A et al (2011) Virtual reality training in neurosurgery: review of current status and future applications. Surg Neurol Int 2:52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mattei TA et al (2013) Design of a synthetic simulator for pediatric lumbar spine pathologies: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Pediatr 12(2):192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark J, Goulder R (2002) Human Systems Integration (HSI). PM magazine: the acquisition process. Defense Acquisition University Press, Fort Belvoir, VA, pp 88–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danielle L. Julian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roger D. Smith
    • 1
  • Alyssa D. S. Tanaka
    • 2
  • Ariel Dubin
    • 3
  1. 1.Florida Hospital Nicholson CenterCelebrationUSA
  2. 2.SoarTechOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Columbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations