SURGICAL SIMULATORS: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW ON THE USE OF VIRTUAL REALITY AND HAPTICS
Abstract
Surgical learning faces high costs and risks, making simulation indispensable. However, traditional virtual platforms lack tactile perception, hindering the trainee's force control and increasing the risk of iatrogenic injuries. Objective: To critically evaluate scientific evidence of high methodological rigor regarding the use of virtual reality and haptic feedback in operative training. Methodology: A structured integrative review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. The final sample comprised seven studies published between 2022 and 2026. Results: Haptic feedback demonstrated consistent benefits in micromotor precision and bone drilling, reducing technical errors such as drill plunge distance. Conversely, in open surgeries requiring high traction, fixed robotic arms impose ergonomic restrictions. Additionally, the heterogeneity and excess of virtual stimuli elevate cognitive load, which may impact resident performance. Despite high costs, there is favorable long-term cost-effectiveness due to the mitigation of operative errors. Conclusion: Haptic simulation acts as a promising transitional resource. However, it does not replace traditional cadaver-based methods in large-scale open procedures. The hybrid surgical curriculum emerges as an adequate model for developing technical proficiency.
Author Biographies
Master's student in the Surgery and Experimental Research Program at UEPA. Graduated in Business Administration from AIEC.
PhD in Psychology and Master's in Electrical Engineering from UFPA. Graduated in Data Processing Technology from UNAMA, with specializations in Computer Networks and Higher Education Teaching. Conducts research in technology and health, focusing on virtual reality, information systems, and artificial intelligence. Professor at UEPA, leading research groups in phenomenology, health, and technology.
References
1. Palet MJ, Antúnez-Riveros M, Barahona M. Construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for surgical training in knee arthroscopy. Cureus. 2021;13(5):e15237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.15237
2. Montero EFS, Zanchet DJ. Realidade virtual e a medicina. Acta Cir Bras. 2003;18(5):489-490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502003000500017
3. Vallim LHS, Filho JL. Avanços da realidade aumentada e realidade virtual na educação médica: desafios e perspectivas futuras. Rev Interface Tecnol. 2024;21(2):269-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31510/infa.v21i2.2108
4. Tan J, Karim MR, Tamanna R, Kim S, Patel B. Comparing learning outcomes of virtual reality (VR) simulators using haptic feedback versus box trainer (BT) in laparoscopic training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. 2025;17(2):e78910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.78910
5. Joseph FJ, Vanluchene HER, Bervini D. Simulation training approaches in intracranial aneurysm surgery-a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2023;46(1):101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-01997-7
6. Jourdes F, Valentin B, Allard J, Duriez C, Seeliger B. Visual haptic feedback for training of robotic suturing. Front Robot AI. 2022;9:800232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.800232
7. Neri A, Coduri M, Penza V, Santangelo A, Oliveri A, Turco E, et al. A novel affordable user interface for robotic surgery training: design, development and usability study. Front Digit Health. 2024;6:1428534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1428534
8. Busaidy KF. Advances in surgical training using simulation. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019;31(4):621-626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2019.07.006
9. Davidson EL, Penniston KL, Farhat WA. Advancements in surgical education: exploring animal and simulation models in fetal and neonatal surgery training. Front Pediatr. 2024;12:1402596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1402596
10. Papanikolaou IG, Haidopoulos D, Paschopoulos M, Chatzipapas I, Loutradis D, Vlahos NF. Changing the way we train surgeons in the 21th century: a narrative comparative review focused on box trainers and virtual reality simulators. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;235:13-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.01.016
11. Lahanas V, Georgiou E, Loukas C. Surgical simulation training systems: box trainers, virtual reality and augmented reality simulators. Int J Adv Robot Autom. 2016;1(2):1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15226/2473-3032/1/2/00109
12. Halman J, Tencer S, Siemiński M. Artificial intelligence and extended reality in the training of vascular surgeons: a narrative review. Med Sci. 2025;13(3):126. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.3390/medsci13030126
13. Serrano CM, Atenas MJ, Rodriguez PJ, Vervoorn JM. From virtual reality to reality: fine-tuning the taxonomy for extended reality simulation in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2025;29(3):486-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.13064
14. Dandu C, Creisher B, Davis M, Lin M, Schenke S, Aboian E. Integration of high-resolution mixed reality models into resident training. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech. 2026;12(2):102133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvscit.2026.102133
15. Rangarajan K, Davis H, Pucher PH. Systematic review of virtual haptics in surgical simulation: a valid educational tool? J Surg Educ. 2020;77(2):337-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.09.006
16. Sanfilippo F, Salvietti G, Blažauskas T, Gabriele G, Zafar M, Hua MT, et al. Integrating VR, AR, and haptics in basic surgical skills training: a review and perspective. IEEE Access. 2025;13:99203-99220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3574265
17. Tjønnås MS, Das A, Våpenstad C, Ose SO. Simulation-based skills training: a qualitative interview study exploring surgical trainees' experience of stress. Adv Simul (Lond). 2022;7(1):33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-022-00231-2
18. Mendes KDS, Silveira RCCP, Galvão CM. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2008;17(4):758-764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018
19. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.j4008
20. Hilton M. JBI critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses (product review). J Can Health Libr Assoc [Internet]. 2024 Dec. 1 [cited 2026 May 13];45(3). Available from: https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/jchla/index.php/jchla/article/view/29801
21. Mackenzie CF, Harris TE, Shipper AG, Elster E, Bowyer MW. Virtual reality and haptic interfaces for civilian and military open trauma surgery training: a systematic review. Injury. 2022;53(11):3575-3585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.08.003
22. Gani A, Pickering O, Ellis C, Sabri O, Pucher P. Impact of haptic feedback on surgical training outcomes: a randomised controlled trial of haptic versus non-haptic immersive virtual reality training. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;83:104734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104734
23. Hudise JY, Mojiri ME, Shawish AM, Majrashi KA, Ayoub AY, Alshammakhi AM, et al. The role of virtual reality in advancing surgical training in otolaryngology: a systematic review. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e71222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.71222
24. Landau M, Comeaux M, Mortell T, Boyle R, Imbrescia K, Chaffin AE. Characterizing the untapped potential of virtual reality in plastic and reconstructive surgical training: a systematic review on skill transferability. JPRAS Open. 2024;41:295-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2024.06.015
25. Azher S, Mills A, He J, Hyjazie T, Tokuno J, Quaiattini A, et al. Findings favor haptics feedback in virtual simulation surgical education: an updated systematic and scoping review. Surg Innov. 2024;31(3):331-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241238263
26. Duncombe J, Kassam AA, de Brosses PC, Harris D, Buckingham G. Investigating hip arthroplasty femur preparation training using a haptic-enabled virtual reality simulation. Surg Innov. 2025;33(2):169-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506251383830
27. Roy M, Priyadarshini T, Ashika MS, Das G, Patro BP, Bharadwaj S. Simulation-based learning in orthopaedics: a qualitative systematic review. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025;65:102986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2025.102986
License
Copyright (c) 2026 RECIMA21 - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar - ISSN 2675-6218
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os direitos autorais dos artigos/resenhas/TCCs publicados pertecem à revista RECIMA21, e seguem o padrão Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0), permitindo a cópia ou reprodução, desde que cite a fonte e respeite os direitos dos autores e contenham menção aos mesmos nos créditos. Toda e qualquer obra publicada na revista, seu conteúdo é de responsabilidade dos autores, cabendo a RECIMA21 apenas ser o veículo de divulgação, seguindo os padrões nacionais e internacionais de publicação.