You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Alan Kawarai Lefor1,2,*,
  • Saúl Alexis Heredia Pérez3 and
  • Atsushi Shimizu2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Riccardo Mastroianni Reviewer 2: Zoka Milan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the study aimed to describe efficacy of virtual reality simulator for training and expert surgeons. Unfortunately, this study suffers from many limitations. 

First, the sample size is to small to perform any analysis, this is the main limitation of the study. Description of inclusion criteria must be included, as well as definition of novice and expert surgeon, based on case load. Parameters defined to evaluate efficacy of simulator must be described, and should be discuss why authors selected these parameters as significant for comparison between groups. Baseline clinical features are missing, in order to describe baseline differences between groups. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for asking me to review the paper entitled "Development  and validation of a virtual reality simulator for robot-assisted minimally invasive liver surgery training". 

As a clinician, I found this article very interesting and important for further surgical training. 

I would suggest several minor changes:

-introduction, lines 29-33, please change the order of three major events, based on the year : 1987 first, followed by  1999 and 2003.

-please introduce the word kinematic data in line 43 on page 1

-Sentence : Some mathematical notation is needed to define these three parameters ..." is not clear. Does it mean that the authors had to do "some" mathematical notation? Please explain more details  what does "some" means .

-Page 4, line 118-121. Please add the questionnaire that you used

-Line 143: observed by an observer. Please add more details about the observer: qualification, how she/he was chosen

-Please introduce GEARS scores

-In discussion, there are elements of repetition

-The authors should add their opinion how they think that this method can improve in the future.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No further comments. Authors properly addressed reviewers comments.