BACKGROUND: The LTS 2000-ISM60 (LTS; Realsim Systems, Alburquerque, NM, USA) is a computer enhanced video-laparoscopic training system. Our purpose was to validate the LTS and to correlate its scoring performance with that of the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS), a widely used and well-validated physical simulator. METHODS: Participants (n = 124) included medical students, residents, fellows, and attending surgeons from general surgery, gynecology, and urology in 3 Canadian universities. They were classified in groups based on laparoscopic experience: novice, intermediate, competent, and expert. Participants (n = 124) were tested on the LTS, and 74 were tested on both the LTS and the MISTELS. A user satisfaction questionnaire was completed after each performance. RESULTS: LTS metrics showed a progressive improvement in total scores according to academic level as well as level of laparoscopic experience (P < .001). Good correlation was found between the LTS and the MISTELS (r = .79). Level of user satisfaction was highest with LTS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on laparoscopic experience and academic level, the LTS has a comparable discriminating capability for level of performance with that of the MISTELS. The higher degree of user satisfaction attributed to the LTS could justify its use as a training and assessment tool for surgical specialties.
BACKGROUND: The LTS 2000-ISM60 (LTS; Realsim Systems, Alburquerque, NM, USA) is a computer enhanced video-laparoscopic training system. Our purpose was to validate the LTS and to correlate its scoring performance with that of the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS), a widely used and well-validated physical simulator. METHODS:Participants (n = 124) included medical students, residents, fellows, and attending surgeons from general surgery, gynecology, and urology in 3 Canadian universities. They were classified in groups based on laparoscopic experience: novice, intermediate, competent, and expert. Participants (n = 124) were tested on the LTS, and 74 were tested on both the LTS and the MISTELS. A user satisfaction questionnaire was completed after each performance. RESULTS: LTS metrics showed a progressive improvement in total scores according to academic level as well as level of laparoscopic experience (P < .001). Good correlation was found between the LTS and the MISTELS (r = .79). Level of user satisfaction was highest with LTS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on laparoscopic experience and academic level, the LTS has a comparable discriminating capability for level of performance with that of the MISTELS. The higher degree of user satisfaction attributed to the LTS could justify its use as a training and assessment tool for surgical specialties.