All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper was well improved according to reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
as in comments section
as in comments section
as in comments section
The manuscript is improved and all my comments are incorporated. I have no further concerns and recommend it in the current form as accepted.
The authors have effectively incorporated all the feedback. I concur with moving forward to accepting the article in its present form.
The authors have incorporated the suggestions, accordingly.
The results section has also been revised as requested.
The authors must respond to reviewers suggestions and correct where it is necessary!
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The paper introduces an affordable system for simulating Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy, utilizing HTC Vive technology. Such cost-effective systems hold great potential in enhancing the adoption of simulation tools among students. In general, the paper is excellently written and structured, and the state-of-the-art section offers a comprehensive literature review. The authors demonstrate a profound understanding of the surgical environment and the challenges it poses. Additionally, the majority of the prepared figures (excluding screenshots) effectively illustrate the overall schema. The emphasis on conducting research that caters to various budget constraints for training scenarios is commendable. As a result, the reviewer wholeheartedly supports the authors for their remarkable work and valuable contributions to training scenarios. The paper should be proofread for some English errors.
The reviewer recommends proofreading the document before publication. Some of the minor errors encountered are:
"C represents a constraints set" -> "C represents a constraints set" (remove the extra "a")
"less computing time, but high solving speed" is indeed redundant since "less computing time" and "high solving speed" convey the same idea. It would be more appropriate to rephrase it to avoid repetition.
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
This work describes a surgical simulator for initial Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy (LPN) training. This study used an open-source game engine and a low-cost virtual reality (VR) device with visual and haptic input to mimic the simulator. Such cost-effective systems hold great potential to enhance the adoption of simulation tools among students.
The 3D virtual kidney modelling aspects have been thoroughly detailed. The comprehensiveness with which the force-based soft body simulation method is discussed is commendable. Furthermore, the majority of the figures provided adequately depict the general schema. The authors also discussed using survey-based questionnaires for face and content validation. The paper is well-written and structured, and the cutting-edge portion provides a thorough literature review.
The paper also covers computing efficiency and interoperability with CPU and GPU-based devices. The paper concludes that the UNITY3D training simulator with soft bodies made of simplex meshes may be deformed efficiently and at a minimal computational cost. After carefully weighing the benefits and downsides of the technology, the paper suggests that HTC Vive is a viable option for LPT training.
Some of the errors encountered are:
1. On page 4, section 4.2, "C represents constraints set" should be replaced with "C represents constraints set."
2. On page 3, section 3, step 3, "With the help of two laser emitting controllers, trainees can easily mark and precisely cut along the cancerous structure, avoiding damage to the nearest tissues" should be replaced with "avoiding damage to the nearby tissues."
The authors have crafted an impressive virtual training simulator for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, but to truly stand out, they could spice things up by adding more comparative details with other simulators in the field. This would help showcase the distinct advantages and unique features of their work.
The paper presents an exciting low-cost surgical Unity-based Virtual Training Simulator for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using the HTC Vive. The authors highlight several noteworthy contributions. However, it would be wonderful to see more details in the results and comparative analysis section. A deeper dive into the experimental setup, user studies, and specific metrics used to evaluate the simulator's performance would add more weight to their claims.
Carefully proofread the grammar, syntax, and clarity to ensure the paper's overall readability.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.