BACKGROUND: The efficacy of laparoscopy simulators remains controversial. METHODS: This was a comparative prospective study that evaluated the impact of simulator training on technical competence during a real surgical procedure. Residents were divided into 3 groups: the Mcgill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS) group, training on a simple simulator; LAP Mentor group, training on a virtual simulator; and control group. An initial evaluation was made by a validated score during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Each resident was then trained for 1 month. A second evaluation was then performed. RESULTS: Before/after scores were significantly improved in the MISTELS (P = .042) and LAP Mentor (P = .026) groups. It was not the case in the control group. There was a better progression in the MISTELS (P = .026) and LAP Mentor (P = .007) groups than in the control group. There was no significant difference between the MISTELS and LAP Mentor groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simulator training provides a more rapid acquisition of competence in surgical technique.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of laparoscopy simulators remains controversial. METHODS: This was a comparative prospective study that evaluated the impact of simulator training on technical competence during a real surgical procedure. Residents were divided into 3 groups: the Mcgill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS) group, training on a simple simulator; LAP Mentor group, training on a virtual simulator; and control group. An initial evaluation was made by a validated score during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Each resident was then trained for 1 month. A second evaluation was then performed. RESULTS: Before/after scores were significantly improved in the MISTELS (P = .042) and LAP Mentor (P = .026) groups. It was not the case in the control group. There was a better progression in the MISTELS (P = .026) and LAP Mentor (P = .007) groups than in the control group. There was no significant difference between the MISTELS and LAP Mentor groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simulator training provides a more rapid acquisition of competence in surgical technique.
Authors: Amine Chellali; Helena Mentis; Amie Miller; Woojin Ahn; Venkata S Arikatla; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Suvranu De; Steven D Schwaitzberg; Caroline G L Cao Journal: Int J Hum Comput Stud Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 3.632
Authors: Michael Connolly; Johnathan Seligman; Andrew Kastenmeier; Matthew Goldblatt; Jon C Gould Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kellie K Middleton; Travis Hamilton; Pei-Chien Tsai; Dana B Middleton; John L Falcone; Giselle Hamad Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rosalie A Carr; Catherine W Chung; Christian M Schmidt; Andrea Jester; Molly E Kilbane; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Eugene P Ceppa Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jose Quezada; Pablo Achurra; Cristian Jarry; Domenech Asbun; Rodrigo Tejos; Martín Inzunza; Gabriel Ulloa; Andres Neyem; Carlos Martínez; Carlo Marino; Gabriel Escalona; Julian Varas Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 4.584