Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Virtual risks: Rich domain risk and technology transfer failure as design criteria in the Sheffield Knee Arthroscopy Trainer (SKATS)

  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper an example of Virtual Reality (VR) system design in a safety-critical training domain is discussed. In particular, a model for design is presented. This model seeks to create operational definitions of risk in the surgical domain. Perhaps more importantly, it also seeks to discover operational predictors of the risk of technology-transfer failure as a fundamental requisite for the early design. Typically both of these activities do take place in some form in most designs, but they are frequently III-conceived due to inappropriate timing, low importance, insufficient methodological rigour and the absence of a pre-existent integration model. Using examples from the Sheffield Knee Arthroscopy Training System (SKATS), we will discuss the contention that equal research effort needs to be spent on core design issues as on the technological VR design. Specifically, we will propose a set of guidelines for the research and development of risk metrics in Virtual Environment (VE) design and technology-transfer for safety-critical training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Wann J, Mon-Williams M. What does virtual reality Need?: human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments. International of Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1996; 44: 829–847

    Google Scholar 

  2. Satava RM. Virtual reality surgical simulator: the first steps. Journal of Surgical Endoscopy 1993; 7: 203–205

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sagar MA, Bullivant D, Mallinson GD, Hunter PJ. A virtual environment and model of the eye for surgical simulation. SIGGRAPH '94, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, Orlando, FA, 24–29 July 1994; 205–212

  4. Ota D, Loftin B, Saito T, Lea R, Keller J. Virtual reality in surgical education. Computers in Biology and Medicine 1995; 25: 127–137

    Google Scholar 

  5. Langrana NA, Burdea G, Lange K, Gomez D, Deshpande S. Dynamic force feedback in virtual knee palpation. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 1994; 6: 321–333

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hollands RJ, Trowbridge EA, Bickerstaff D, Edwards JB, Mort N. The particular problem of arthroscopic surgical simulation — a preliminary report. In: Computer graphics: developments in virtual environments. Earnshaw RA, Vince JA, eds. London: Academic Press 1995; 475–482

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ziegler R, Fischer G, Müller W, Göbel M. Virtual reality arthroscopy training simulator. Computers in Biology and Medicine 1995; 25(2): 193–203

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mabrey JD, Merril JR. Development of the Virtual Knee for orthopaedic surgical training and research, 1997. URL http://mabrey.uthscsa.edu/virtknee.html.

  9. Burdea G, Coiffet P. Virtual reality technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1994

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alexander I. Charting a path to project success. The Computer Bulletin, July 1998. Swindon, UK: The British Computer Society; 26–27

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cuschieri A. Minimal access surgery and the future of interventional laparoscopy. The American Journal of Surgery 1991; 161: 404–407

    Google Scholar 

  12. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Database. Prevalence of ambulatory surgery — percentage of knee arthroscopies carried out as day surgery. Paris, France: Chateau de la Muette, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dumay ACM, Jense G J. Endoscopic surgery simulation in a virtual environment. Computers in Biology and Medicine 1995; 25(2): 139–148

    Google Scholar 

  14. Miller W E. Learning arthroscopy. Southern Medical Journal 1985; 78(8): 935–940

    Google Scholar 

  15. OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Database. 1997. OECD Health data URL http://www.oecd.org

  16. DeLee J C. Complications of arthroscopy and arthroscopic surgery: results of a national survey. Arthroscopy: The journal of arthroscopic and related surgery 1985; 1(4): 214–220

    Google Scholar 

  17. Logan I P, Wills DPM, Mohsen AMMA, Sherman K P. Virtual environment knee arthroscopy training system. In: Proceedings of the 1996 Simulation Multi-conference, 8–11 April 1996; New Orleans, LA, 11–16

  18. McCarthy AD, Harley PJ, Smallwood R. Virtual arthroscopy training: do the ‘virtual skills’ developed match the real skills required? In: Medicine meets virtual reality 7. Westwood JD et al, eds. Amsterdam: IOS Press 1999; 221–227

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt RA. Motor control and learning: a behavorial emphasis. Champaign, II: Human Kinetics Publishers Inc., 1988

    Google Scholar 

  20. McCarthy AD, Hollands RJ. A commercially viable virtual reality knee arthroscopy training system. In: Medicine meets virtual reality 6. Westwood JD et al, eds. Amsterdam: IOS Press 1998; 302–308

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nduka CC, Menzies-Gow N, Monson JRT, Darzi A. Teaching laparoscopic surgical skills: evaluation of a training programme. Minimally Invasive Therapy 1994; 3: 217–220

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bamford DJ, Paul SA, Noble J, Davies DR. Avoidable complications of arthroscopic surgery. Journal of Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 1993; 37: 92–95

    Google Scholar 

  23. The Home Office. Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act, Section 5(3e), 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, 1986

  24. HM Inspector of Anatomy. Human Anatomy Act, Chapter 14, Section 1(1). Wellington House, Waterloo Road, London, 1984; 1–9

  25. HM Inspector of Anatomy.Human Tissue Act, Chapter 54, Wellington House, Waterloo Road, London, 1961; 1–11

  26. Law H, Engineering psychology: the hidden psychologist — a case study on the evaluation of the Safer Cities programme using a geographical information system. In: Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics, vol. 2. Harris ed. Ashgate 1996; 231–238

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Warwick Risk Initiative Department of Stats, Warwick University, CV4 7AL, Coventry

    J. G. Arthur

  2. Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    A. D. McCarthy

  3. The University of Birmingham Sensory Neuroscience Group, Birmingham

    C. Baber

  4. The School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    P. J. Harley

Authors
  1. J. G. Arthur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. D. McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Baber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. J. Harley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. G. Arthur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arthur, J.G., McCarthy, A.D., Baber, C. et al. Virtual risks: Rich domain risk and technology transfer failure as design criteria in the Sheffield Knee Arthroscopy Trainer (SKATS). Virtual Reality 4, 192–202 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01418155

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01418155

Keywords