Literature DB >> 19160288

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery.

Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy1, Rajesh Aggarwal, Latha Palanivelu, Brian R Davidson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether virtual reality training can supplement or replace conventional laparoscopic surgical training (apprenticeship) in surgical trainees with limited or no prior laparoscopic experience. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and grey literature until March 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including video trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little or no prior laparoscopic experience. We also included trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, morbidity, conversion rate, operating time, and hospital stay. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 23 trials with 612 participants. Four trials compared virtual reality versus video trainer training. Twelve trials compared virtual reality versus no training or standard laparoscopic training. Four trials compared virtual reality, video trainer training and no training, or standard laparoscopic training. Three trials compared different methods of virtual reality training. Most of the trials were of high risk of bias. In trainees without prior surgical experience, virtual reality training decreased the time taken to complete a task, increased accuracy, and decreased errors compared with no training; virtual reality group was more accurate than video trainer training group. In the participants with limited laparoscopic experience, virtual reality training reduces operating time and error better than standard in the laparoscopic training group; composite operative performance score was better in the virtual reality group than in the video trainer group. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality training can supplement standard laparoscopic surgical training of apprenticeship and is at least as effective as video trainer training in supplementing standard laparoscopic training. Further research of better methodological quality and more patient-relevant outcomes are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19160288     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006575.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  70 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

2.  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

3.  Resident training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: role of the porcine model.

Authors:  Marco La Torre; Carlo Caruso
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  [Quality and objectifiability of training and advanced training in urology].

Authors:  S C Müller; T Strunk; P Alken
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Simulation in surgical education.

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

Review 6.  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

7.  Development of an ex vivo simulated training model for laparoscopic liver resection.

Authors:  Andrew Strickland; Katherine Fairhurst; Chris Lauder; Peter Hewett; Guy Maddern
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Michelin-starred theatres.

Authors:  Richard C Newton; Samir Damji; Maryam Alfa-Wali
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: training the next generation.

Authors:  Seth Miller; Marlin Wayne Causey; Aneel Damle; Justin Maykel; Scott Steele
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  An animal model to train Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair.

Authors:  J Rosenberg; I Presch; H C Pommergaard; J Burcharth; M Bagot d'Arc
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.739

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.