Literature DB >> 22350226

Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises.

Genevieve Dulan1, Robert V Rege, Deborah C Hogg, Kristine M Gilberg-Fisher, Nabeel A Arain, Seifu T Tesfay, Daniel J Scott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We previously developed nine inanimate training exercises as part of a comprehensive, proficiency-based robotic training curriculum that addressed 23 unique skills identified via task deconstruction of robotic operations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate construct validity, workload, and expert levels for the nine exercises.
METHODS: Expert robotic surgeons (n = 8, fellows and faculty) and novice trainees (n = 4, medical students) each performed three to five consecutive repetitions of nine previously reported exercises (five FLS models with or without modifications and four custom-made models). Each task was scored for time and accuracy using modified FLS metrics; task scores were normalized to a previously established (preliminary) proficiency level and a composite score equaled the sum of the nine normalized task scores. Questionnaires were administered regarding prior experience. After each exercise, participants completed a validated NASA-TLX Workload Scale to rate the mental, physical, temporal, performance, effort, and frustration levels of each task.
RESULTS: Experts had performed 119 (range = 15-600) robotic operations; novices had observed ≤ 1 robotic operation. For all nine tasks and the composite score, experts achieved significantly better performance than novices (932 ± 67 vs. 618 ± 111, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences in workload between experts and novices were detected (32.9 ± 3.5 vs. 32.0 ± 9.1, respectively; n.s.). Importantly, frustration ratings were relatively low for both groups (4.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.8 ± 1.6, n.s.). The mean performance of the eight experts was deemed suitable as a revised proficiency level for each task.
CONCLUSION: Using objective performance metrics, all nine exercises demonstrated construct validity. Workload was similar between experts and novices and frustration was low for both groups. These data suggest that the nine structured exercises are suitable for proficiency-based robotic training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22350226     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-011-2102-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  13 in total

1.  Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training.

Authors:  A G Gallagher; E M Ritter; R M Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-09-19       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Shannon A Fraser; Donna Stanbridge; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Christopher G Andrew
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Multicenter construct validity for southwestern laparoscopic videotrainer stations.

Authors:  James R Korndorffer; John L Clayton; Seifu T Tesfay; William C Brunner; Rafael Sierra; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel B Jones; Robert V Rege; Cheri L Touchard; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  E Matt Ritter; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.058

6.  Implementation, construct validity, and benefit of a proficiency-based knot-tying and suturing curriculum.

Authors:  Mouza T Goova; Lisa A Hollett; Seifu T Tesfay; Rajiv B Gala; Nancy Puzziferri; Farid J Kehdy; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.891

7.  Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; Fikre Wang; James R Korndorffer; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Two-year skill retention and certification exam performance after fundamentals of laparoscopic skills training and proficiency maintenance.

Authors:  Lauren B Mashaud; Antonio O Castellvi; Lisa A Hollett; Deborah C Hogg; Seifu T Tesfay; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Psychomotor testing predicts rate of skill acquisition for proficiency-based laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; James R Korndorffer; F William Black; J Bruce Dunne; Rafael Sierra; Cheri L Touchard; David A Rice; Ronald J Markert; Peter R Kastl; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator.

Authors:  Stéfanie A Seixas-Mikelus; Andrew P Stegemann; Thenkurussi Kesavadas; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Gughan Sathyaseelan; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Gregory E Wilding; James O Peabody; Khurshid A Guru
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  20 in total

1.  Development of a virtual reality robotic surgical curriculum using the da Vinci Si surgical system.

Authors:  Pedro Pablo Gomez; Ross E Willis; Kent R Van Sickle
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit.

Authors:  Nabeel A Arain; Genevieve Dulan; Deborah C Hogg; Robert V Rege; Cathryn E Powers; Seifu T Tesfay; Linda S Hynan; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review.

Authors:  Justin D Bric; Derek C Lumbard; Matthew J Frelich; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Virtual reality robotic surgery simulation curriculum to teach robotic suturing: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel J Kiely; Walter H Gotlieb; Susie Lau; Xing Zeng; Vanessa Samouelian; Agnihotram V Ramanakumar; Helena Zakrzewski; Sonya Brin; Shannon A Fraser; Pira Korsieporn; Laura Drudi; Joshua Z Press
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-05-16

5.  Construct validity of nine new inanimate exercises for robotic surgeon training using a standardized setup.

Authors:  Anthony M Jarc; Myriam Curet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Simulation-based training in robot-assisted surgery: current evidence of value and potential trends for the future.

Authors:  Michael I Hanzly; Tareq Al-Tartir; Syed Johar Raza; Atif Khan; Mohammad Manan Durrani; Thomas Fiorica; Phillip Ginsberg; James L Mohler; Boris Kuvshinoff; Khurshid A Guru
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Face, content, and construct validity of four, inanimate training exercises using the da Vinci ® Si surgical system configured with Single-Site ™ instrumentation.

Authors:  Anthony M Jarc; Myriam Curet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery.

Authors:  Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  The safety of urologic robotic surgery depends on the skills of the surgeon.

Authors:  Erika Palagonia; Elio Mazzone; Geert De Naeyer; Frederiek D'Hondt; Justin Collins; Pawel Wisz; Fijs W B Van Leeuwen; Henk Van Der Poel; Peter Schatteman; Alexandre Mottrie; Paolo Dell'Oglio
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Learning tools and simulation in robotic surgery: state of the art.

Authors:  Nicolas C Buchs; François Pugin; Francesco Volonté; Philippe Morel
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.