Literature DB >> 17356944

Face validation of the Simbionix LAP Mentor virtual reality training module and its applicability in the surgical curriculum.

I D Ayodeji1, M Schijven, J Jakimowicz, J W Greve.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of our study was to determine expert and referent face validity of the LAP Mentor, the first procedural virtual reality (VR) laparoscopy trainer.
METHODS: In The Netherlands 49 surgeons and surgical trainees were given a hands-on introduction to the Simbionix LAP Mentor training module. Subsequently, a standardized five-point Likert-scale questionnaire was administered. Respondents who had performed over 50 laparoscopic procedures were classified as "experts." The others constituted the "referent" group, representing nonexperts such as surgical trainees.
RESULTS: Of the experts, 90.5% (n = 21) judge themselves to be average or above-average laparoscopic surgeons, while 88.5% of referents (n = 28) feel themselves to be less-than-average laparoscopic surgeons (p = 0.000). There is agreement between both groups on all items concerning the simulator's performance and application. Respondents feel strongly about the necessity for training on basic skills before operating on patients and unanimously agree on the importance of procedural training. A large number (87.8%) of respondents expect the LAP Mentor to enhance a trainee's laparoscopic capability, 83.7% expect a shorter laparoscopic learning curve, and 67.3% even predict reduced complication rates in laparoscopic cholecystectomies among novice surgeons. The preferred stage for implementing the VR training module is during the surgeon's residency, and 59.2% of respondents feel the surgical curriculum is incomplete without VR training.
CONCLUSION: Both potential surgical trainees and trainers stress the need for VR training in the surgical curriculum. Both groups believe the LAP Mentor to be a realistic VR module, with a powerful potential for training and monitoring basic laparoscopic skills as well as full laparoscopic procedures. Simulator training is perceived to be both informative and entertaining, and enthusiasm among future trainers and trainees is to be expected. Further validation of the system is required to determine whether the performance results agree with these favorable expectations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17356944     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9219-7

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


  20 in total

1.  Transfer of training in acquiring laparoscopic skills.

Authors:  P L Figert; A E Park; D B Witzke; R W Schwartz
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Construct validity: experts and novices performing on the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator.

Authors:  M Schijven; J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-02-17       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Face-, expert, and referent validity of the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator.

Authors:  M Schijven; J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-08       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Introducing the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator: toward a revolution in surgical education.

Authors:  Marlies P Schijven; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2003

5.  Minimal-access surgery training in the Netherlands: a survey among residents-in-training for general surgery.

Authors:  M P Schijven; J T M Berlage; J J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-10-28       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator.

Authors:  Derek T Woodrum; Pamela B Andreatta; Rajani K Yellamanchilli; Lauren Feryus; Paul G Gauger; Rebecca M Minter
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Construct validation of a novel hybrid surgical simulator.

Authors:  D Broe; P F Ridgway; S Johnson; S Tierney; K C Conlon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Training, credentialling, and granting of clinical privileges for laparoscopic general surgery.

Authors:  T L Dent
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  MIST VR: a virtual reality trainer for laparoscopic surgery assesses performance.

Authors:  M S Wilson; A Middlebrook; C Sutton; R Stone; R F McCloy
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  J C Rosser; L E Rosser; R S Savalgi
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1997-02
View more
  22 in total

1.  Hysteroscopic placement of tubal sterilization implants: virtual reality simulator training.

Authors:  Pierre Panel; Michael Bajka; Arnaud Le Tohic; Alaa El Ghoneimi; Carmen Chis; Stéphane Cotin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Limited value of haptics in virtual reality laparoscopic cholecystectomy training.

Authors:  Jonathan R Thompson; Anthony C Leonard; Charles R Doarn; Matt J Roesch; Timothy J Broderick
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Preliminary evaluation of the pattern cutting and the ligating loop virtual laparoscopic trainers.

Authors:  A Chellali; W Ahn; G Sankaranarayanan; J T Flinn; S D Schwaitzberg; D B Jones; Suvranu De; C G L Cao
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Impact of established skills in open surgery on the proficiency gain process for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Daniel C Brown; Danilo Miskovic; Benjie Tang; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  One or two trainees per workplace for laparoscopic surgery training courses: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Andreas Minassian; Jonathan David Hendrie; Laura Benner; Anas Amin Preukschas; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Procedural virtual reality simulation in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Cecilie Våpenstad; Sonja N Buzink
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Development and validation of 3D printed virtual models for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy: urologists' and patients' perception.

Authors:  Francesco Porpiglia; Riccardo Bertolo; Enrico Checcucci; Daniele Amparore; Riccardo Autorino; Prokar Dasgupta; Peter Wiklund; Ashutosh Tewari; Evangelos Liatsikos; Cristian Fiori
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Application of virtual reality technology in clinical medicine.

Authors:  Lan Li; Fei Yu; Dongquan Shi; Jianping Shi; Zongjun Tian; Jiquan Yang; Xingsong Wang; Qing Jiang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.060

9.  Psychomotor control in a virtual laparoscopic surgery training environment: gaze control parameters differentiate novices from experts.

Authors:  Mark Wilson; John McGrath; Samuel Vine; James Brewer; David Defriend; Richard Masters
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 4.584

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.