Literature DB >> 18622566

Do hybrid simulator-generated metrics correlate with content-valid outcome measures?

Paul Cesanek1, Miroslav Uchal, Selman Uranues, Joseph Patruno, Christina Gogal, Sharon Kimmel, Roberto Bergamaschi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hybrid simulators provide objective metrics for laparoscopic task performance. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between hybrid simulator-generated metrics and content-valid outcome measures.
METHODS: Residents underwent training with a previously validated 5-task simulation model (5-TSM). The resident tasks included vessel clipping and dividing, lesion excision, loop appendectomy, mesh placement with tacks, and suture perforation with intracorporeal knot tying. After training, the residents were tested using the open module of a hybrid simulator (ProMIS) with previously validated passing scores. Content validity was defined as the extent to which outcome measures departed from clinical reality. Content-valid outcome measures (accuracy error, knot slippage, leak, operating time, tissue damage) were evaluated by two blinded raters. The hybrid simulator-generated metrics were path length and smoothness of movements. Values are given as means (standard deviation is not shown).
RESULTS: Over 23 months, 20 residents underwent training with 5-TSM. Respectively, for tasks 1 to 5, the path length was 3,895, 3,472, 4,620, 2,408, and 9,089 mm; the smoothness (jerk) was 346, 455, 549, 264, and 910 cm/sec3; the accuracy error was 0.45, 2.20, 0.55, 0.87, and 0.20 mm; and the knot slippage was 5%. There were no leaks. The operating time, respectively, was 54, 61, 135, 43, and 130 s, and the tissue damage was 0, 0.28, 0, 0.8, and 0 mm. The interrater reliability was more than 0.80 for all the outcome measures except accuracy error (k=0.52). There was correlation between path length and operating time (Spearman rho, 0.537-0.709; p<0.05) for all the tasks. There was no correlation between path length and accuracy error, knot slippage, leak, and tissue damage. No correlation was found between smoothness and any of the outcome measures for any of the tasks except operating time (Spearman rho, 0.762-0.958; p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although an expected strong correlation was observed between hybrid simulator-generated metrics and operating time, this study showed no correlation between simulator-generated metrics and other content-valid outcome measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18622566     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0018-6

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


  11 in total

1.  Disruptive visions: surgeon responsibility during the era of change.

Authors:  R M Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Practice distribution in procedural skills training: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  S Mackay; P Morgan; V Datta; A Chang; A Darzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-03-26       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Prospective randomized evaluation of surgical resident proficiency with laparoscopic suturing after course instruction.

Authors:  K L Harold; B D Matthews; C L Backus; B L Pratt; B T Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-29       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training.

Authors:  A G Gallagher; E M Ritter; R M Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-09-19       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Validation of a six-task simulation model in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  M Uchal; Y Raftopoulos; J Tjugum; R Bergamaschi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-11-11       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Time for evidence-based minimal access surgery training--simulate or sink.

Authors:  J J Jakimowicz; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Construct validation of the ProMIS simulator using a novel laparoscopic suturing task.

Authors:  K R Van Sickle; D A McClusky; A G Gallagher; C D Smith
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  To simulate or not to simulate: what is the question?

Authors:  Sanjeev Dutta; David Gaba; Thomas M Krummel
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Optimal position of working ports in laparoscopic surgery: an in vitro study.

Authors:  W C Meng; S P Kwok; K L Leung; C C Chung; W Y Lau; A K Li
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1996-08

10.  The influence of experience and camera holding on laparoscopic instrument movements measured with the TrEndo tracking system.

Authors:  M K Chmarra; W Kolkman; F W Jansen; C A Grimbergen; J Dankelman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-05-04       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  2 in total

1.  Assessment of joystick and wrist control in hand-held articulated laparoscopic prototypes.

Authors:  Linde M Okken; Magdalena K Chmarra; Ellen Hiemstra; Frank Willem Jansen; Jenny Dankelman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  How valid are commercially available medical simulators?

Authors:  Jj Stunt; Ph Wulms; Gm Kerkhoffs; J Dankelman; Cn van Dijk; Gjm Tuijthof
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2014-10-14
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.