Literature DB >> 21107103

Systematic review on mentoring and simulation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Danilo Miskovic1, Susannah M Wyles, Melody Ni, Ara W Darzi, George B Hanna.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate the influence of mentoring and simulated training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) and define the key components for learning advanced technical skills.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is a complex procedure, often being self-taught by senior surgeons. Educational issues such as inadequate training facilities or a shortfall of training fellowships may result in a slow uptake of LCS. The effectiveness of mentored and simulated training, however, remains unclear.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search, using Ovid databases. Four study categories were identified: mentored versus nonmentored cases, training case selection, simulation, and assessment. We performed a meta-analysis and a mixed model regression on the difference of the main outcome measures (conversion rates, morbidity, and mortality) for mentored trainees and expert surgeons. We also compared conversion rates of mentored and nonmentored. Meta-analysis of risk factors for conversion was performed using published and unpublished data sets requested from various investigators. For studies on simulation, we compared scores of surveys on the perception of different training courses.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. Pooled weighted outcomes of mentored cases (n = 751) showed a lower conversion rate (13.3% vs 20.5%, P = 0.0332) compared with nonmentored cases (n = 695). Compared to expert case series (n = 5313), there was no difference in conversion (P = 0.2835), anastomotic leak (P = 0.8342), or mortality (P = 0.5680). A meta-analysis of training case selection data (n = 4444) revealed male sex (P < 0.0001), previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.0200), a BMI greater than 30 (P = 0.0050), an ASA of less than 2 (P < 0.0001), colorectal cancer (P < 0.0001) and intra-abdominal fistula (P < 0.0001), but not older than 64 years (P = 0.4800), to significantly increase conversion risk. Participants on cadaveric courses were highly satisfied with the teaching value yet trainees on an animal course gave less positive feedback. Structured assessment for LCS has been partially implemented.
CONCLUSION: This review and meta-analysis supports evidence that trainees can obtain similar clinical results like expert surgeons in laparoscopic colorectal surgery if supervised by an experienced trainer. Cadaveric models currently provide the best value for training in a simulated environment. There remains a need for further research into technical skills assessment and the educational value of simulated training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21107103     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f662e5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  36 in total

1.  Observational clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) for competency assessment in laparoscopic colorectal surgery at the specialist level.

Authors:  Danilo Miskovic; Melody Ni; Susannah M Wyles; Amjad Parvaiz; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  A comprehensive review of telementoring applications in laparoscopic general surgery.

Authors:  Stavros A Antoniou; George A Antoniou; Jan Franzen; Stefan Bollmann; Oliver O Koch; Rudolf Pointner; Frank A Granderath
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Systematic review of validity testing in colonoscopy simulation.

Authors:  James Ansell; John Mason; Neil Warren; Peter Donnelly; Neil Hawkes; Sunil Dolwani; Jared Torkington
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Analysis of laboratory-based laparoscopic colorectal surgery workshops within the English National Training Programme.

Authors:  Susannah M Wyles; Danilo Miskovic; Zhifang Ni; Austin G Acheson; Charles Maxwell-Armstrong; Robert Longman; Tom Cecil; Mark G Coleman; Alan F Horgan; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Need for simulation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery training.

Authors:  Valerio Celentano
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-09-27

6.  A multi-modal approach to training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery accelerates proficiency gain.

Authors:  John T Jenkins; Andrew Currie; Stefano Sala; Robin H Kennedy
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Randomized controlled trial on the effect of coaching in simulated laparoscopic training.

Authors:  Simon J Cole; Hugh Mackenzie; Joon Ha; George B Hanna; Danilo Miskovic
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Outcomes for trainees vs experienced surgeons undertaking laparoscopic antireflux surgery - is equipoise achieved?

Authors:  Claire N Brown; Lorelle T Smith; David I Watson; Peter G Devitt; Sarah K Thompson; Glyn G Jamieson
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Development and implementation of the Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report (STTAR) in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Susannah M Wyles; Danilo Miskovic; Zhifang Ni; Ara W Darzi; Roland M Valori; Mark G Coleman; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  SAGES evidence-based guidelines for the laparoscopic resection of curable colon and rectal cancer.

Authors:  Marc Zerey; Lisa Martin Hawver; Ziad Awad; Dimitrios Stefanidis; William Richardson; Robert D Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.