Table 1.

Simulation with 3D reconstruction

3D reconstruction
Author, year of publication	Participants	Design and structures	Evaluation	Face validity	Content validity	Construct validity	Important findings	MERSQI score
Ghazi et al. 2021 [8]	n = 43 (27 novices,16 experts)	Multi-institutional prospective	1. CROMS 2. GEARS	✓	✓	✓	Experts significantly outperformed novices Model useful as a training tool (93.8%) and assessment simulation platform (87.5%)	14.5
Golab et al. 2017 [9]	Expert/s 3 patients	Prospective	–	–	–	–	No complications No positive margins	7
Maddox et al. 2018 [10]	Expert/s 6 patients	Prospective	–	–	–	–	Simulation: significantly lower blood loss	9.5
Monda et al. 2018 [11]	n = 24 (4 medical students, 14 residents, 3 fellows, 3 experts)	Prospective	1. GEARS 2. NASA TLX	✓	✓	✓	Mean responses: 79.2 on realism, 90.2 for usefulness as a training tool GEARS scores: significantly better in experts Scores: improved across trials	13.5
von Rundstedt et al. 2017 [12]	Expert/s 10 patients	Feasibility prospective study	–	–	–	✓	Resection time, resected tumor volume, and margins: similar between rehearsals and operations	9.5

CROMS – Clinically Relevant Objective Metrics of Simulators; GEARS – Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Surgeons; MERSQI – The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score; NASA TLX – the NASA Task Load Index