Literature DB >> 20816353

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models.

Fabien Leblanc1, Anthony J Senagore, Clyde N Ellis, Bradley J Champagne, Knut M Augestad, Paul C Neary, Conor P Delaney.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training.
DESIGN: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models.
SETTING: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction.
RESULTS: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve. Copyright 2010 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20816353     DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Educ        ISSN: 1878-7452            Impact factor:   2.891


  10 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions.

Authors:  Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Cadaver embalming fluid for surgical training courses: modified Larssen solution.

Authors:  Okan Bilge; Servet Celik
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 3.  The novel laparoscopic training 3D model in urology with surgical anatomic remarks: Fresh-frozen cadaveric tissue.

Authors:  Emre Huri; Mehmet Ezer; Eddie Chan
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-12

Review 4.  Simulation and its role in training.

Authors:  Hoda Samia; Sadaf Khan; Justin Lawrence; Conor P Delaney
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2013-03

Review 5.  What to consider when designing a laparoscopic colorectal training curriculum: a review of the literature.

Authors:  A Gaitanidis; C Simopoulos; M Pitiakoudis
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 6.  Advanced training in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura Beyer-Berjot; Vanessa Palter; Teodor Grantcharov; Rajesh Aggarwal
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  A Systematic Review of 10 Years of Augmented Reality Usability Studies: 2005 to 2014.

Authors:  Arindam Dey; Mark Billinghurst; Robert W Lindeman; J Edward Swan
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2018-04-17

Review 8.  Forensic Implications of Anatomical Education and Surgical Training With Cadavers.

Authors:  Carmelo Pirri; Carla Stecco; Andrea Porzionato; Rafael Boscolo-Berto; René H Fortelny; Veronica Macchi; Marko Konschake; Stefano Merigliano; Raffaele De Caro
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-06-23

9.  Enhancing paramedics procedural skills using a cadaveric model.

Authors:  David Lim; Stephen Bartlett; Peter Horrocks; Courtenay Grant-Wakefield; Jodie Kelly; Vivienne Tippett
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  Augmented reality in healthcare education: an integrative review.

Authors:  Egui Zhu; Arash Hadadgar; Italo Masiello; Nabil Zary
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 2.984

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.