BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine the value of virtual reality (VR) training for a multimodality training program of basic laparoscopic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants in a two-daymultimodality training for laparoscopic surgery used box trainers, live animal training, and cadaveric training on the pulsating organ perfusion (POP) trainer in a structured and standardized training program. The participants were divided into two groups. The VR group (n = 13) also practiced with VR training during the program, whereas the control group (n = 14) did not use VR training. The training modalities were assessed using questionnaires with a five-point Likert scale after the program. Concerning VR training, members of the control group assessed their expectations, whereas the VR group assessed the actual experience of using it. Skills performance was evaluated with five standardized test tasks in a live porcine model before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the training program. Laparoscopic skills were measured by task completion time and a general performance score for each task. Baseline tests were compared with laparoscopic experience of all participants for construct validity of the skills test. RESULTS: The expected benefit from VR training of the control group was higher than the experienced benefit of the VR group. Box and POP training received better ratings from the VR group than from the control group for some purposes. Both groups improved their skill parameters significantly from pre-training to post-training tests [score +17 % (P < 0.01), time -29 % (P < 0.01)]. No significant difference was found between the two groups for laparoscopic skills improvement except for the score in the instrument coordination task. Construct validity of the skills test was significant for both time and score. CONCLUSIONS: At its current level of performance, VR training does not meet expectations. No additional benefit was observed from VR training in our multimodality training program.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine the value of virtual reality (VR) training for a multimodality training program of basic laparoscopic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Participants in a two-day multimodality training for laparoscopic surgery used box trainers, live animal training, and cadaveric training on the pulsating organ perfusion (POP) trainer in a structured and standardized training program. The participants were divided into two groups. The VR group (n = 13) also practiced with VR training during the program, whereas the control group (n = 14) did not use VR training. The training modalities were assessed using questionnaires with a five-point Likert scale after the program. Concerning VR training, members of the control group assessed their expectations, whereas the VR group assessed the actual experience of using it. Skills performance was evaluated with five standardized test tasks in a live porcine model before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the training program. Laparoscopic skills were measured by task completion time and a general performance score for each task. Baseline tests were compared with laparoscopic experience of all participants for construct validity of the skills test. RESULTS: The expected benefit from VR training of the control group was higher than the experienced benefit of the VR group. Box and POP training received better ratings from the VR group than from the control group for some purposes. Both groups improved their skill parameters significantly from pre-training to post-training tests [score +17 % (P < 0.01), time -29 % (P < 0.01)]. No significant difference was found between the two groups for laparoscopic skills improvement except for the score in the instrument coordination task. Construct validity of the skills test was significant for both time and score. CONCLUSIONS: At its current level of performance, VR training does not meet expectations. No additional benefit was observed from VR training in our multimodality training program.
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; James R Korndorffer; Sarah Markley; Rafael Sierra; Daniel J Scott Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Geoffrey R Wignall; John D Denstedt; Glenn M Preminger; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Margaret S Pearle; Robert M Sweet; Elspeth M McDougall Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kent R Van Sickle; Mercedeh Baghai; Ih-Ping Huang; Adam Goldenberg; C Daniel Smith; E Matt Ritter Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-04-16 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Rachel Rosenthal; Walter A Gantert; Christian Hamel; Dieter Hahnloser; Juerg Metzger; Thomas Kocher; Peter Vogelbach; Daniel Scheidegger; Daniel Oertli; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Felix Nickel; Jonathan D Hendrie; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Thomas Bruckner; Carly R Garrow; Maisha Mantel; Hannes G Kenngott; Philipp Romero; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Jonathan D Hendrie; Mona W Schmidt; Tanja Proctor; Sai Paul; Carly R Garrow; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Andreas Minassian; Jonathan David Hendrie; Laura Benner; Anas Amin Preukschas; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Jonathan D Hendrie; Mona W Schmidt; Carly R Garrow; Thomas Bruckner; Tanja Proctor; Sai Paul; Davud Adigüzel; Sebastian Bodenstedt; Andreas Erben; Hannes Kenngott; Young Erben; Stefanie Speidel; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Paul J Roch; Henriette M Rangnick; Julia A Brzoska; Laura Benner; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Philip C Müller; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat-Peter Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: H G Kenngott; M Wagner; F Nickel; A L Wekerle; A Preukschas; M Apitz; T Schulte; R Rempel; P Mietkowski; F Wagner; A Termer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Felix Nickel; Felix Jede; Andreas Minassian; Matthias Gondan; Jonathan D Hendrie; Tobias Gehrig; Georg R Linke; Martina Kadmon; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Trials Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Felix Nickel; Julia A Brzoska; Matthias Gondan; Henriette M Rangnick; Jackson Chu; Hannes G Kenngott; Georg R Linke; Martina Kadmon; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 1.889