BACKGROUND: Basic laparoscopic skills are initially best taught and practiced in an inanimate setting. Various devices are used to aid in this education of laparoscopic skills. These devices range from simple box trainers to sophisticated virtual reality trainers. This investigation tested the hypothesis that participants would prefer one trainer to another trainer. METHODS: Preclinical medical students volunteered for this study. All underwent a porcine laboratory. The students were then divided into 3 groups by method of training: group A--a virtual reality trainer (MIST-VR), group B--an inanimate box trainer (LTS 2000), and group C--both trainers. Each group participated in 10 laboratories with the assigned trainer(s). After completion of the laboratories, all students underwent a similar porcine laboratory. During this laboratory, opinions of each trainer and specific tasks were ascertained from each student. RESULTS: No statistical difference was seen between groups A and B when asked if their specific trainer helped their skills, was realistic, helped in the animal laboratory, and was interesting. When group C was asked the same questions about each trainer, no statistical difference was seen except that 47% thought the MIST-VR was not realistic as opposed to 0% who thought the LTS 2000 was not realistic (P <.003). The level of difficulty of each task correlated with how much the specific task helped in development of skills for both trainers (P <.0001). In group C, 89% of the participants thought the LTS 2000 helped more that the MIST-VR and 56% thought the LTS 2000 was more interesting than the MIST-VR. In addition, 83% of students in group C chose LTS 2000 when asked to pick only one trainer. CONCLUSIONS: While virtual reality trainers may have some advantages, most participants feel that inanimate box trainers help more, are more interesting, and should be chosen over virtual reality trainers if only one trainer is allowed. Further studies need to investigate if the opinions affect participants' utilization of these trainers.
BACKGROUND: Basic laparoscopic skills are initially best taught and practiced in an inanimate setting. Various devices are used to aid in this education of laparoscopic skills. These devices range from simple box trainers to sophisticated virtual reality trainers. This investigation tested the hypothesis that participants would prefer one trainer to another trainer. METHODS: Preclinical medical students volunteered for this study. All underwent a porcine laboratory. The students were then divided into 3 groups by method of training: group A--a virtual reality trainer (MIST-VR), group B--an inanimate box trainer (LTS 2000), and group C--both trainers. Each group participated in 10 laboratories with the assigned trainer(s). After completion of the laboratories, all students underwent a similar porcine laboratory. During this laboratory, opinions of each trainer and specific tasks were ascertained from each student. RESULTS: No statistical difference was seen between groups A and B when asked if their specific trainer helped their skills, was realistic, helped in the animal laboratory, and was interesting. When group C was asked the same questions about each trainer, no statistical difference was seen except that 47% thought the MIST-VR was not realistic as opposed to 0% who thought the LTS 2000 was not realistic (P <.003). The level of difficulty of each task correlated with how much the specific task helped in development of skills for both trainers (P <.0001). In group C, 89% of the participants thought the LTS 2000 helped more that the MIST-VR and 56% thought the LTS 2000 was more interesting than the MIST-VR. In addition, 83% of students in group C chose LTS 2000 when asked to pick only one trainer. CONCLUSIONS: While virtual reality trainers may have some advantages, most participants feel that inanimate box trainers help more, are more interesting, and should be chosen over virtual reality trainers if only one trainer is allowed. Further studies need to investigate if the opinions affect participants' utilization of these trainers.
Authors: J B Pagador; J Uson; M A Sánchez; J L Moyano; J Moreno; P Bustos; J Mateos; F M Sánchez-Margallo Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: J B Pagador; L F Sánchez; J A Sánchez; P Bustos; J Moreno; F M Sánchez-Margallo Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Felix Nickel; Vasile V Bintintan; Tobias Gehrig; Hannes G Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Carsten N Gutt; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.352