Literature DB >> 17081183

Virtual reality simulation training can improve technical skills during laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy.

R Aggarwal1, A Tully, T Grantcharov, C R Larsen, T Miskry, A Farthing, A Darzi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the first commercially available virtual reality (VR) simulator to incorporate procedural modules for training of inexperienced gynaecological surgeons to perform laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Departments of surgery and gynaecology in central London teaching hospitals. SAMPLE: Thirty gynaecological surgeons were recruited to the study, and were divided into novice (<10 laparoscopic procedures), intermediate (20-50) and experienced (>100) groups.
METHODS: All subjects were orientated to the VR simulator with a basic skills task, followed by performing ten repetitions of the virtual ectopic pregnancy module, in a distributed manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative performance was assessed by the time taken to perform surgery, blood loss and total instrument path length.
RESULTS: There were significant differences between the groups at the second repetition of the ectopic module for time taken (median 551.1 versus 401.2 versus 249.2 seconds, P = 0.001), total blood loss (median 304.2 versus 187.4 versus 123.3 ml, P = 0.031) and total instrument path length (median 17.8 versus 8.3 versus 6.8 m, P = 0.023). The learning curves of the experienced operators plateaued at the second session, although greater numbers of sessions were necessary for intermediate (seven) and novice (nine) surgeons to achieve similar levels of skill.
CONCLUSIONS: Gynaecological surgeons with minimal laparoscopic experience can improve their skills during short-phase training on a VR procedural module. In contrast, experienced operators showed nonsignificant improvements. Thus, VR simulation may be useful for the early part of the learning curve for surgeons who wish to learn to perform laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17081183     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01148.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  36 in total

1.  Retention of laparoscopic procedural skills acquired on a virtual-reality surgical trainer.

Authors:  Mathilde Maagaard; Jette Led Sorensen; Jeanett Oestergaard; Torur Dalsgaard; Teodor P Grantcharov; Bent S Ottesen; Christian Rifbjerg Larsen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-10-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Simulation in surgical education.

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

Review 3.  The LapSim virtual reality simulator: promising but not yet proven.

Authors:  Katherine Fairhurst; Andrew Strickland; Guy Maddern
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Teaching laparoscopy to residents: how can we select good candidates?

Authors:  Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus; Giles Hellawell; Mafalda Melo; Ana Covita; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Who should do NOTES? Initial endoscopic performance of laparoscopic surgeons compared to gastroenterologists and untrained individuals.

Authors:  Oliver J Wagner; Monika Hagen; Philippe Morel; Ihsan Inan; Daniel Candinas; Stephan A Vorburger
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-08-23       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Validation of laparoscopic surgical skills training outside the operating room: a long road.

Authors:  N J Hogle; L Chang; V E M Strong; A O U Welcome; M Sinaan; R Bailey; D L Fowler
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Feasibility and fidelity of practising surgical fixation on a virtual ulna bone.

Authors:  Justin LeBlanc; Carol Hutchison; Yaoping Hu; Tyrone Donnon
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  Development of a virtual reality training curriculum for phacoemulsification surgery.

Authors:  A V Spiteri; R Aggarwal; T L Kersey; M Sira; L Benjamin; A W Darzi; P A Bloom
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 9.  Advances in arthroscopy-indications and therapeutic applications.

Authors:  Andrew J Carr; Andrew J Price; Sion Glyn-Jones; Jonathan L Rees
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 20.543

Review 10.  The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review.

Authors:  O A J van der Meijden; M P Schijven
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.