OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback when training a complex operational task on a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator. BACKGROUND: : Simulators are now widely accepted as a training tool, but there is insufficient knowledge about how much feedback is necessary, which is useful for sustainable implementation. METHODS: A randomized trial complying with CONSORT Statement. All participants had to reach a predefined proficiency level for a complex operational task on a virtual reality simulator. The intervention group received standardized instructor feedback a maximum of 3 times. The control group did not receive instructor feedback. Participants were senior medical students without prior laparoscopic experience (n = 99). Outcome measures were time, repetitions, and performance score to reach a predefined proficiency level. Furthermore, influence of sex and perception of own surgical skills were examined. RESULTS: Time (in minutes) and repetitions were reduced in the intervention group (162 vs 342 minutes; P < 0.005) and (29 vs 65 repetitions; P < 0.005). The control group achieved a higher performance score than the intervention group (57% vs 49%; P = 0.004). Men used less time (in minutes) than women (P = 0.037), but no sex difference was observed for repetitions (P = 0.20). Participants in the intervention group had higher self-perception regarding surgical skills after the trial (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Instructor feedback increases the efficiency when training a complex operational task on a virtual reality simulator; time and repetitions used to achieve a predefined proficiency level were significantly reduced in the group that received instructor feedback compared with the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01497782.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback when training a complex operational task on a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator. BACKGROUND: : Simulators are now widely accepted as a training tool, but there is insufficient knowledge about how much feedback is necessary, which is useful for sustainable implementation. METHODS: A randomized trial complying with CONSORT Statement. All participants had to reach a predefined proficiency level for a complex operational task on a virtual reality simulator. The intervention group received standardized instructor feedback a maximum of 3 times. The control group did not receive instructor feedback. Participants were senior medical students without prior laparoscopic experience (n = 99). Outcome measures were time, repetitions, and performance score to reach a predefined proficiency level. Furthermore, influence of sex and perception of own surgical skills were examined. RESULTS: Time (in minutes) and repetitions were reduced in the intervention group (162 vs 342 minutes; P < 0.005) and (29 vs 65 repetitions; P < 0.005). The control group achieved a higher performance score than the intervention group (57% vs 49%; P = 0.004). Men used less time (in minutes) than women (P = 0.037), but no sex difference was observed for repetitions (P = 0.20). Participants in the intervention group had higher self-perception regarding surgical skills after the trial (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Instructor feedback increases the efficiency when training a complex operational task on a virtual reality simulator; time and repetitions used to achieve a predefined proficiency level were significantly reduced in the group that received instructor feedback compared with the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01497782.
Authors: Eliane M Shore; Guylaine G Lefebvre; Heinrich Husslein; Flemming Bjerrum; Jette Led Sorensen; Teodor P Grantcharov Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2015-06
Authors: Mona W Schmidt; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Sarah M Trent; Laura Benner; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Michael Boettcher; Johannes Boettcher; Stefan Mietzsch; Thomas Krebs; Robert Bergholz; Konrad Reinshagen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.584