OBJECTIVES: Surgical simulation has been shown to enhance the training of general surgery residents. Since catheter-based techniques have become an important part of the vascular surgeon's armamentarium, we explored whether simulation might impact the acquisition of catheter skills by surgical residents. METHODS:Twenty general surgery residents receiveddidactic training in the techniques of catheter intervention. Residents were then randomized with 10 receiving additional training with the Procedicus, computer-based, haptic simulator. All 20 residents then participated in 2 consecutivementored catheter-based interventions for lower extremity occlusive disease in an OR/angiography suite. Resident performance was graded by attending surgeons blinded to the resident's training status, using 18 procedural steps as well as a global rating scale. RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 resident groups with regard to demographics or scores on a visuospatial test administered at study outset. Overall, residents exposed to simulation scored higher than controls during the first angio/OR intervention: procedural steps (simulation/control) (50 +/- 6 vs. 33 +/- 9, P = 0.0015); global rating scale (30 +/- 7 vs. 19 +/- 5, P = 0.0052). The advantage provided by simulator training persisted with the second intervention (53 +/- 6 vs. 36 +/- 7, P = 0.0006); global rating scale (33 +/- 6 vs. 21 +/- 6, P = 0.0015). Moreover, simulation training, particularly for the second intervention, led to enhancement in almost all of the individual measures of performance. CONCLUSION: Simulation is a valid tool for instructing surgical residents and fellows in basic endovascular techniques and should be incorporated into surgical training programs. Moreover, simulators may also benefit the large number of vascular surgeons who seek retraining in catheter-based intervention.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Surgical simulation has been shown to enhance the training of general surgery residents. Since catheter-based techniques have become an important part of the vascular surgeon's armamentarium, we explored whether simulation might impact the acquisition of catheter skills by surgical residents. METHODS: Twenty general surgery residents received didactic training in the techniques of catheter intervention. Residents were then randomized with 10 receiving additional training with the Procedicus, computer-based, haptic simulator. All 20 residents then participated in 2 consecutive mentored catheter-based interventions for lower extremity occlusive disease in an OR/angiography suite. Resident performance was graded by attending surgeons blinded to the resident's training status, using 18 procedural steps as well as a global rating scale. RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 resident groups with regard to demographics or scores on a visuospatial test administered at study outset. Overall, residents exposed to simulation scored higher than controls during the first angio/OR intervention: procedural steps (simulation/control) (50 +/- 6 vs. 33 +/- 9, P = 0.0015); global rating scale (30 +/- 7 vs. 19 +/- 5, P = 0.0052). The advantage provided by simulator training persisted with the second intervention (53 +/- 6 vs. 36 +/- 7, P = 0.0006); global rating scale (33 +/- 6 vs. 21 +/- 6, P = 0.0015). Moreover, simulation training, particularly for the second intervention, led to enhancement in almost all of the individual measures of performance. CONCLUSION: Simulation is a valid tool for instructing surgical residents and fellows in basic endovascular techniques and should be incorporated into surgical training programs. Moreover, simulators may also benefit the large number of vascular surgeons who seek retraining in catheter-based intervention.
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
Authors: Rajeev Dayal; Peter L Faries; Stephanie C Lin; Joshua Bernheim; Scott Hollenbeck; Brian DeRubertis; Susan Trocciola; Jason Rhee; James McKinsey; Nicholas J Morrissey; K Craig Kent Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Jay S Yadav; Mark H Wholey; Richard E Kuntz; Pierre Fayad; Barry T Katzen; Gregory J Mishkel; Tanvir K Bajwa; Patrick Whitlow; Neil E Strickman; Michael R Jaff; Jeffrey J Popma; David B Snead; Donald E Cutlip; Brian G Firth; Kenneth Ouriel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Roberta Rehder; Muhammad Abd-El-Barr; Kristopher Hooten; Peter Weinstock; Joseph R Madsen; Alan R Cohen Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Willem I M Willaert; Rajesh Aggarwal; Isabelle Van Herzeele; Nicholas J Cheshire; Frank E Vermassen Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Daniel J Grabo; Paul J DiMuzio; John C Kairys; Stephen E McIlhenny; Albert G Crawford; Charles J Yeo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Vincent Luboz; Chris Hughes; Derek Gould; Nigel John; Fernando Bello Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Ali Alaraj; Fady T Charbel; Daniel Birk; Matthew Tobin; Mathew Tobin; Cristian Luciano; Pat P Banerjee; Silvio Rizzi; Jeff Sorenson; Kevin Foley; Konstantin Slavin; Ben Roitberg Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.654