Literature DB >> 12437255

Assessment of basic endoscopic performance using a virtual reality simulator.

David M Wilhelm1, Kenneth Ogan, Claus G Roehrborn, Jeffery A Cadeddu, Margaret S Pearle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of supervised training using a state-of-the-art virtual reality (VR) genitourinary endoscopy simulator on the basic endoscopic skills of novice endoscopists. STUDY
DESIGN: We evaluated 21 medical students performing an initial VR case scenario (pretest) requiring rigid cystoscopy, flexible ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy, and basket retrieval of a proximal ureteral stone. All students were evaluated with objective parameters assessed by the VR simulator and by two experienced evaluators using a global rating scale. Students were then randomized to a control group receiving no further training or a training group, which received five supervised training sessions using the VR simulator. All students were then evaluated again in the same manner using the same case scenario (posttest).
RESULTS: Comparing the results of pre- and posttests, no major differences were demonstrated for any variable in the control group. In the trained group, posttest results revealed statistically significant improvement from baseline in the following parameters: total procedure time (p = 0.002), time to introduce a ureteral guidewire (p = 0.039), self-evaluation (p < 0.001), and evaluator assessment (p < 0.001). Comparing the posttest results of the control and trained arms, we found significantly better posttest scores in the trained group for the following parameters: ability to perform the task (p = 0.035), overall performance (p = 0.004), and total evaluator score (p < or = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Students trained on the VR simulator demonstrated statistically significant improvement on repeat testing, but the control group showed no improvement. Endourologic training using VR simulation facilitates performance of basic endourologic tasks and might translate into better performance in the operating room.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12437255     DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(02)01346-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  21 in total

Review 1.  Simulation in surgical education.

Authors:  Vanessa N Palter; Teodor P Grantcharov
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  A systematic review of the methodological quality and outcomes of RCTs to teach medical undergraduates surgical and emergency procedures.

Authors:  Roger E Thomas; Rodney Crutcher; Diane Lorenzetti
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  How far will simulators be involved into training?

Authors:  M Pilar Laguna; Theodorus M de Reijke; Jean J de la Rosette
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Task-specific bench model training versus basic laparoscopic skills training for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Robert Sabbagh; Suman Chatterjee; Arun Chawla; Anil Kapoor; Edward D Matsumoto
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Validation of the ArthroS virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic skills.

Authors:  J J Stunt; G M M J Kerkhoffs; C N van Dijk; G J M Tuijthof
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  Update on resident training models for ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Ephrem O Olweny; Margaret S Pearle
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Description and validation of realistic and structured endourology training model.

Authors:  Federico Soria; Esther Morcillo; Juan Luis Sanz; Alberto Budia; Alvaro Serrano; Francisco M Sanchez-Margallo
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2014-10-02

Review 8.  Surgical simulation: a systematic review.

Authors:  Leanne M Sutherland; Philippa F Middleton; Adrian Anthony; Jeffrey Hamdorf; Patrick Cregan; David Scott; Guy J Maddern
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 9.  Simulation-based training and assessment in urological surgery.

Authors:  Abdullatif Aydin; Nicholas Raison; Muhammad Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future.

Authors:  B M A Schout; A J M Hendrikx; F Scheele; B L H Bemelmans; A J J A Scherpbier
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-07-25       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.