BACKGROUND: This study was designed to investigate the validity of using the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program to assess laparoscopic competence among gynecologists. METHODS: A total of 42 gynecologists with variable surgical training and laparoscopic experience were enrolled for FLS testing which includes a computer-based cognitive examination to assess one's knowledge and a psychomotor portion for manual skills assessment. Prior to testing, participants were surveyed to document their level of surgical training and caseload for common laparoscopic procedures. Participants were required to self-evaluate their confidence in conducting laparoscopic procedures. Upon completion of the FLS test, feedback was collected regarding the use of the FLS program for training and assessing laparoscopic skills of gynecologists. RESULTS: Gynecologists with advanced levels of surgical training achieved higher scores in the FLS manual skills test than those with lower levels of training (P = 0.009). The cognitive test, however, failed to show an increased score with greater levels of surgical training (P = 0.457). Regression analyses revealed that a participant's laparoscopic expertise contributed significantly to one's FLS manual skills scores (P = 0.008) beyond surgical training level alone. In contrast, laparoscopic expertise did not reflect changes in the FLS cognitive scores significantly (P = 0.628). Self-reported confidence scores correlated well with FLS manual skills test scores (r = 0.54) but not with the cognitive scores (r = 0.16). CONCLUSION: The manual skills test of the FLS program appropriately measures the level of a gynecologist's psychomotor skills. The FLS cognitive test does not discriminate between advanced and novice surgeons. Modifications of questions used in the cognitive test are necessary to allow better adaptability when applying the FLS program to gynecologists.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to investigate the validity of using the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program to assess laparoscopic competence among gynecologists. METHODS: A total of 42 gynecologists with variable surgical training and laparoscopic experience were enrolled for FLS testing which includes a computer-based cognitive examination to assess one's knowledge and a psychomotor portion for manual skills assessment. Prior to testing, participants were surveyed to document their level of surgical training and caseload for common laparoscopic procedures. Participants were required to self-evaluate their confidence in conducting laparoscopic procedures. Upon completion of the FLS test, feedback was collected regarding the use of the FLS program for training and assessing laparoscopic skills of gynecologists. RESULTS: Gynecologists with advanced levels of surgical training achieved higher scores in the FLS manual skills test than those with lower levels of training (P = 0.009). The cognitive test, however, failed to show an increased score with greater levels of surgical training (P = 0.457). Regression analyses revealed that a participant's laparoscopic expertise contributed significantly to one's FLS manual skills scores (P = 0.008) beyond surgical training level alone. In contrast, laparoscopic expertise did not reflect changes in the FLS cognitive scores significantly (P = 0.628). Self-reported confidence scores correlated well with FLS manual skills test scores (r = 0.54) but not with the cognitive scores (r = 0.16). CONCLUSION: The manual skills test of the FLS program appropriately measures the level of a gynecologist's psychomotor skills. The FLS cognitive test does not discriminate between advanced and novice surgeons. Modifications of questions used in the cognitive test are necessary to allow better adaptability when applying the FLS program to gynecologists.
Authors: G L Adrales; U B Chu; D B Witzke; M B Donnelly; D Hoskins; M J Mastrangelo; A Gandsas; A E Park Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2003-02-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeffrey H Peters; Gerald M Fried; Lee L Swanstrom; Nathaniel J Soper; Lelan F Sillin; Bruce Schirmer; Kaaren Hoffman Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Barbara Goff; Lynn Mandel; Gretchen Lentz; Amy Vanblaricom; Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager; David Lee; Andrew Galakatos; Matthew Davies; Peter Nielsen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Breno Dauster; Andrew P Steinberg; Melina C Vassiliou; Simon Bergman; Donna D Stanbridge; Liane S Feldman; Gerald M Fried Journal: J Endourol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Melanie L Hafford; Kent R Van Sickle; Ross E Willis; Todd D Wilson; Kristine Gugliuzza; Kimberly M Brown; Daniel J Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-07-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J B Pagador; J Uson; M A Sánchez; J L Moyano; J Moreno; P Bustos; J Mateos; F M Sánchez-Margallo Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Jeanett Strandbygaard; Mathilde Maagaard; Christian Rifbjerg Larsen; Lars Schouenborg; Christian Ottosen; Charlotte Ringsted; Teodor Grantcharov; Bent Ottesen; Jette Led Sorensen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 4.584