Mitesh Sharma1, Alan Horgan. 1. Department of General Surgery, Newcastle Surgical Training Centre, Freeman Hospital NHS Trust, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE12 8WQ, UK. dr_miteshsharma@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare fresh-frozen cadavers (FFC) with a high-fidelity virtual reality simulator (VRS) as training tools in minimal access surgery for complex and relatively simple procedures. METHODS: A prospective comparative face validity study between FFC and VRS (LAP Mentor(™)) was performed. Surgeons were recruited to perform tasks on both FFC and VRS appropriately paired to their experience level. Group A (senior) performed a laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy, Group B (intermediate) performed a laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, and Group C (junior) performed basic laparoscopic tasks (BLT) (camera manipulation, hand-eye coordination, tissue dissection and hand-transferring skills). Each subject completed a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire rating the training modalities in nine domains. Data were analysed using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Forty-five surgeons were recruited to participate (15 per skill group). Median scores for subjects in Group A were significantly higher for evaluation of FFC in all nine domains compared to VRS (p < 0.01). Group B scored FFC significantly better (p < 0.05) in all domains except task replication (p = 0.06). Group C scored FFC significantly better (p < 0.01) in eight domains but not on performance feedback (p = 0.09). When compared across groups, juniors accepted VRS as a training model more than did intermediate and senior groups on most domains (p < 0.01) except team work. CONCLUSIONS: Fresh-frozen cadaver is perceived as a significantly overall better model for laparoscopic training than the high-fidelity VRS by all training grades, irrespective of the complexity of the operative procedure performed. VRS is still useful when training junior trainees in BLT.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare fresh-frozen cadavers (FFC) with a high-fidelity virtual reality simulator (VRS) as training tools in minimal access surgery for complex and relatively simple procedures. METHODS: A prospective comparative face validity study between FFC and VRS (LAP Mentor(™)) was performed. Surgeons were recruited to perform tasks on both FFC and VRS appropriately paired to their experience level. Group A (senior) performed a laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy, Group B (intermediate) performed a laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, and Group C (junior) performed basic laparoscopic tasks (BLT) (camera manipulation, hand-eye coordination, tissue dissection and hand-transferring skills). Each subject completed a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire rating the training modalities in nine domains. Data were analysed using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Forty-five surgeons were recruited to participate (15 per skill group). Median scores for subjects in Group A were significantly higher for evaluation of FFC in all nine domains compared to VRS (p < 0.01). Group B scored FFC significantly better (p < 0.05) in all domains except task replication (p = 0.06). Group C scored FFC significantly better (p < 0.01) in eight domains but not on performance feedback (p = 0.09). When compared across groups, juniors accepted VRS as a training model more than did intermediate and senior groups on most domains (p < 0.01) except team work. CONCLUSIONS: Fresh-frozen cadaver is perceived as a significantly overall better model for laparoscopic training than the high-fidelity VRS by all training grades, irrespective of the complexity of the operative procedure performed. VRS is still useful when training junior trainees in BLT.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Pablo Lamata; Enrique J Gómez; Francisco M Sánchez-Margallo; Félix Lamata; María Antolín; Samuel Rodríguez; Alfonso Oltra; Jesús Usón Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2006
Authors: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Ondrej Ryska; Zuzana Serclova; Jan Martinek; Radek Dolezel; Jaroslav Kalvach; Stefan Juhas; Jana Juhasova; Bohus Bunganic; Eva Laszikova; Miroslav Ryska Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Felix Nickel; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Florian Rehberger; Jonathan David Hendrie; Benjamin Friedrich Berthold Mayer; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Vasile Bintintan; Georg Richard Linke; Lars Fischer; Beat Peter Müller-Stich Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584