Literature DB >> 15624054

Development and transferability of a cost-effective laparoscopic camera navigation simulator.

J R Korndorffer1, D J Hayes, J B Dunne, R Sierra, C L Touchard, R J Markert, D J Scott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) is vital for the successful performance of laparoscopic operations, yet little time is spent on training. This study aimed to develop an inexpensive LCN simulator, to design a structured curriculum, and to determine the transferability of skills acquired.
METHODS: In this study, 0 degrees and 30 degrees LCN simulators were developed for use on a videotrainer platform. Transferability was tested by enrolling 20 medical students in an institutional review board-approved, randomized, controlled, blinded protocol. Subjects viewed a video tutorial and were pretested in LCN on a porcine Nissen model. Procedures were videotaped and the LCN performance was scored by a blinded rater according to the number of standardized verbal cues required and the percentage of time an optimal surgical view (%OSV) was obtained. Procedure time also was recorded. Subjects were stratified and randomized. The trained group practiced on the LCN simulator until competency was demonstrated. The control group received no training. Both groups were posttested on the porcine Nissen model.
RESULTS: The constructed simulators required 35 man hours for development, cost $25 per board for materials, and proved to be durable. The trained group demonstrated significant improvement in verbal cues (p = 0.001), %OSV (p < 0.001), and procedure time (p = 0.001), whereas the control group showed improvement only in verbal cues (p < 0.02). At posttesting, the training group demonstrated significantly better scores for verbal cues (2.1 vs 8.0; p = 0.02) and %OSV (64% vs 45% p = 0.01) than the control group.
CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the LCN simulator is cost effective and provides trainees with skills that translate to the operating room.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15624054     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-004-8901-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  27 in total

1.  Time-action analysis of instrument positioners in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K T den Boer; M Bruijn; J E Jaspers; L P S Stassen; W F M Erp; A Jansen; P M N Y H Go; J Dankelman; D J Gouma
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-10-19       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Metrics for objective Assessment.

Authors:  R M Satava; A Cuschieri; J Hamdorf
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-11-20       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study.

Authors:  Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Training the novice in laparoscopy. More challenge is better.

Authors:  M R Ali; Y Mowery; B Kaplan; E J DeMaria
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-29       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: new gold standard.

Authors:  C D Smith; C J Weber; J R Amerson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator.

Authors:  A M Derossis; J Bothwell; H H Sigman; G M Fried
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance.

Authors:  D B Jones; J D Brewer; N J Soper
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1996-06

8.  Improving operative performance using a laparoscopic hernia simulator.

Authors:  E C Hamilton; D J Scott; A Kapoor; F Nwariaku; P C Bergen; R V Rege; S T Tesfay; D B Jones
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control .

Authors:  L R Kavoussi; R G Moore; J B Adams; A W Partin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  T P Grantcharov; V B Kristiansen; J Bendix; L Bardram; J Rosenberg; P Funch-Jensen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.939

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence.

Authors:  William C McGaghie; S Barry Issenberg; Elaine R Cohen; Jeffrey H Barsuk; Diane B Wayne
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  A randomized comparison of laparoscopic, magnetically anchored, and flexible endoscopic cameras in performance and workload between laparoscopic and single-incision surgery.

Authors:  Nabeel A Arain; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Sara L Best; Thomas Roshek; Victoria Chang; Deborah C Hogg; Richard Bergs; Raul Fernandez; Erin M Webb; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The effect of simulation in improving students' performance in laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Azzam S Al-Kadi; Tyrone Donnon; Elizabeth Oddone Paolucci; Philip Mitchell; Estifanos Debru; Neal Church
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  A randomized crossover trial examining low- versus high-fidelity simulation in basic laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  Swee Chin Tan; Nicholas Marlow; John Field; Meryl Altree; Wendy Babidge; Peter Hewett; Guy J Maddern
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Construct, content and face validity of the camera handling trainer (CHT): a new E-BLUS training task for 30° laparoscope navigation skills.

Authors:  Domenico Veneziano; Andrea Minervini; John Beatty; Paolo Fornara; Ali Gozen; Francesco Greco; J F Langenhuijsen; Luca Lunelli; Deirdre Overgaauw; Jens Rassweiler; Bernardo Rocco; Rafael Sanchez Salas; Shahrokh Shariat; Robert M Sweet; Giuseppe Simone; Christopher Springer; Agostino Tuccio; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Peter Weibl; Pietro Cozzupoli
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Computer-based surgical simulation is too expensive. Or is it?

Authors:  R S Haluck
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Construct and face validity and task workload for laparoscopic camera navigation: virtual reality versus videotrainer systems at the SAGES Learning Center.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; Randy Haluck; Tai Pham; J Bruce Dunne; Timothy Reinke; Sarah Markley; James R Korndorffer; Paul Arellano; Daniel B Jones; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Certification pass rate of 100% for fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skills after proficiency-based training.

Authors:  Daniel J Scott; E Matt Ritter; Seifu T Tesfay; Elisabeth A Pimentel; Alykhan Nagji; Gerald M Fried
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Camera navigation and tissue manipulation; are these laparoscopic skills related?

Authors:  Sonja N Buzink; Sanne M B I Botden; Jeroen Heemskerk; Richard H M Goossens; Huib de Ridder; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  The new ACS/APDS Skills Curriculum: moving the learning curve out of the operating room.

Authors:  Daniel J Scott; Gary L Dunnington
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.