Literature DB >> 17705087

Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons.

K E Hsu1, F-Y Man, R A Gizicki, L S Feldman, G M Fried.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While operating, surgeons are required to make cognitive decisions and often are interrupted to attend to questions from other members of the health care team. Technical automatization may be achieved by experienced surgeons such that these distractions have little effect on performance of either the surgical or the cognitive task. This study assessed the effect of adding a distracting cognitive task on performance of a basic laparoscopic skill by novice and experienced surgeons.
METHODS: In this study, 31 novice (medical students in postgraduate years [PGYs] 1-2) and 9 experienced (fellows/attendants and PGYs 4-5) laparoscopic surgeons practiced the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) laparoscopic peg transfer task until their scores stabilized. The mean normalized score after five repetitions then was recorded. The subjects also were tested on the number of mathematical addition questions they could answer in 1 min. This was repeated five times, with the mean number of questions attempted and the accuracy (% correct) recorded. The laparoscopic and addition tasks then were performed concurrently five times. Data, presented as mean +/- standard deviation, were analyzed using Student's t-test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: After practice to stable peg transfer performance, the baseline peg transfer score was higher in the experienced group (98 +/- 6 vs 87 +/- 12; p < 0.01). There were no baseline differences between the groups in the number of math questions attempted in 1 min (10 +/- 2 vs 9 +/- 2; p = 0.55) or the number of correct answers (9 +/- 3 vs 8 +/- 3; p = 0.36). The comparison of baseline performance and dual-task performance showed that the experienced surgeons had no decline in peg transfer score (98 +/- 6 vs 97 +/- 6; p = 0.48), number of questions attempted in 1 min (10 +/- 2 vs 9 +/- 3; p = 0.32), or number of correct answers (9 +/- 3 vs 8 +/- 3; p = 0.46). In contrast, dual-tasking among the novices was associated with a decrease in the number of questions attempted (9 +/- 2 vs 8 +/- 2; p < 0.01) and the number of correct answers (8 +/- 3 vs 7 +/- 2; p = 0.02), and with no change in the peg transfer score (87 +/- 12 vs 88 +/- 8; p = 0.38) compared with baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: Distraction significantly decreased a novice's ability to process cognitively based math problems, whereas there was no effect on experienced subjects. This occurred despite the fact that the novice group had practiced to high-level peg transfer scores at baseline. This suggests that the experienced surgeons had achieved automatization of the peg transfer basic surgical skill to a level that cognitive distraction did not affect performance of either task. The experienced surgeons were able to attend equally to both tasks, whereas the novices attended to the surgical task at the expense of some aspects of cognitive task performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17705087     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9452-0

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


  21 in total

1.  Attention and performance.

Authors:  H Pashler; J C Johnston; E Ruthruff
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  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

3.  Objective evaluation of the effect of noise on the performance of a complex laparoscopic task.

Authors:  K Moorthy; Y Munz; S Undre; A Darzi
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Shannon A Fraser; Donna Stanbridge; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Christopher G Andrew
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Effects of cognitive distraction on performance of laparoscopic surgical tasks.

Authors:  Kristen H Goodell; Caroline G L Cao; Steven D Schwaitzberg
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.878

6.  A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver.

Authors:  David L Strayer; Frank A Drews; Dennis J Crouch
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.888

7.  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

8.  Noise in the operating room.

Authors:  R A Shapiro; T Berland
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1972-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?

Authors:  M Van Selst; E Ruthruff; J C Johnston
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Rate of learning and asymptotic performance in an automatization task and the relation to reading.

Authors:  Rozalia Hecht; David Crewther; Sheila Crewther
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2004-12
View more
  37 in total

1.  Impact of Dynamic Endoscopy and Bimanual-Binarial Dissection in Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery Training: A Laboratory Investigation.

Authors:  Francisco Vaz-Guimaraes; Milton M Rastelli; Juan C Fernandez-Miranda; Eric W Wang; Paul A Gardner; Carl H Snyderman
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2015-05-13

2.  Immersive training: breaking the bubble and measuring the heat.

Authors:  Jon R Pluyter; Anne-F Rutkowski; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Impact of intraoperative distractions on patient safety: a prospective descriptive study using validated instruments.

Authors:  Nick Sevdalis; Shabnam Undre; James McDermott; Jasdeep Giddie; Lila Diner; Gillian Smith
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Optimal training design for procedural motor skills: a review and application to laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Edward N Spruit; Guido P H Band; Jaap F Hamming; K Richard Ridderinkhof
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-11-08

5.  Intra-operative disruptions, surgeon's mental workload, and technical performance in a full-scale simulated procedure.

Authors:  Matthias Weigl; Philipp Stefan; Kamyar Abhari; Patrick Wucherer; Pascal Fallavollita; Marc Lazarovici; Simon Weidert; Ekkehard Euler; Ken Catchpole
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  A survey of context recognition in surgery.

Authors:  Igor Pernek; Alois Ferscha
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  Noise in the Operating Room Distracts Members of the Surgical Team. An Observational Study.

Authors:  Sandra Keller; Franziska Tschan; Norbert K Semmer; Eliane Holzer; Daniel Candinas; Mark Brink; Guido Beldi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 8.  A systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications.

Authors:  Simon Y W Li; Farah Magrabi; Enrico Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  The effect of divided attention on novices and experts in laparoscopic task performance.

Authors:  Mudassar Ali Ghazanfar; Malcolm Cook; Benjie Tang; Iain Tait; Afshin Alijani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgical procedure?

Authors:  Jon R Pluyter; Sonja N Buzink; Anne-F Rutkowski; Jack J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.