| Literature DB >> 23460845 |
Domenico Giannotti1, Gregorio Patrizi, Giorgio Di Rocco, Anna Rita Vestri, Camilla Proietti Semproni, Leslie Fiengo, Stefano Pontone, Giorgio Palazzini, Adriano Redler.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Video-games have become an integral part of the new multimedia culture. Several studies assessed video-gaming enhancement of spatial attention and eye-hand coordination. Considering the technical difficulty of laparoscopic procedures, legal issues and time limitations, the validation of appropriate training even outside of the operating rooms is ongoing. We investigated the influence of a four-week structured Nintendo® Wii™ training on laparoscopic skills by analyzing performance metrics with a validated simulator (Lap Mentor™, Simbionix™). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23460845 PMCID: PMC3583870 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057372
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of study participants.
| Characteristic | Group Control, n = 21 | Wii, n = 21 | p-value |
| Age (years) | 27.6±1.5 | 26.9±1.3 | 0.121 |
| Sex (female/male) | 13/8 | 11/10 | 0.756 |
| Right handed | 21 | 19 | 0.488 |
| Previous laparoscopic procedures | 2.2±1.2 | 1.9±1.1 | 0.311 |
| Laparoscopic procedures during the study period | 0.3±0.5 | 0.2±0.4 | 0.474 |
| Residents in General surgery | 11(44.0) | 14(56.0) | 0.688 |
| Residents in Endoscopic surgery | 6(60.0) | 4(40.0) | |
| Residents in Vascular surgery | 4(57.1) | 3(42.9) | |
| I year residents | 12(44.4) | 15(55.6) | 0.260 |
| II year residents | 9(60.0) | 6(40.0) |
mean ±sd;
Pearson's chi-squared test; in brackets: percentage.
Descriptive statistics of all variables of the two groups (session 1 and 2).
| Control Group | Wii Group | |||||
| Performance metric | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | P-value | |
| Task 1 (Session1) | Total time (s) | 185.0 | (142.0–207.5) | 186.0 | (131.5–209.5) | 0.940 |
| Accuracy rate (%) | 30.5 | (22.4–35.7) | 32.3 | (21.6–36.8) | 0.850 | |
| Task 1 (Session 2) | Total time (s) | 166.0 | (137.0–186.0) | 136.0 | (116.5–160.0) | 0.021 |
| Accuracy rate (%) | 32.0 | (25.0–37.2) | 52.4 | (41.6–66.7) | <0.0001 | |
| Task 2 (Session 1) | Total time (s) | 65.0 | (54.0–72.5) | 65.0 | (56.0–73.5) | 0.850 |
| Accuracy rate (%) | 57.2 | (54.8–61.8) | 58.1 | (53.1–65.2) | 0.801 | |
| EMRI (%) | 37.1 | (34.6–40.4) | 37.8 | (33.2–41.3) | 0.801 | |
| EMLI (%) | 40.5 | (38.4–44.2) | 41.7 | (36.7–44.9) | 0.801 | |
| Task 2 (Session 2) | Total time (s) | 54.0 | (49.0–68.0) | 52.0 | (46.5–59.5) | 0.170 |
| Accuracy rate (%) | 61.0 | (57.1–67.1) | 82.8 | (74.5–87.6) | <0.0001 | |
| EMRI (%) | 40.1 | (37.1–44.1) | 55.7 | (51.3–65.7) | <0.0001 | |
| EMLI (%) | 44.0 | (40.1–50.4) | 62.8 | (53.5–69.7) | <0.0001 | |
| Task 3 (Session 1) | Total time (s) | 147.0 | (103.5–168.0) | 142.0 | (110.0–159.0) | 0.890 |
| Balls collected (n) | 8.0 | (7.0–8.0) | 8.0 | (7.0–8.0) | 0.659 | |
| EMRI (%) | 22.5 | (19.1–27.1) | 22.6 | (18.8–28.1) | 0.940 | |
| EMLI (%) | 24.9 | (21.2–30.0) | 24.1 | (19.8–31.4) | 0.910 | |
| Task 3 (Session 2) | Total time (s) | 111.0 | (97.0–149.5) | 100.0 | (89.5–121.5) | 0.159 |
| Balls collected (n) | 8.0 | (8.0–8.0) | 8.0 | (8.0–9.0) | 0.084 | |
| EMRI (%) | 28.3 | (22.7–33.5) | 41.3 | (32.9–50.7) | <0.0001 | |
| EMLI (%) | 29.4 | (25.2–35.4) | 47.2 | (38.2–56.5) | <0.0001 | |
| Task 4 (Session 1) | Total time (s) | 701.0 | (647.0–784.5) | 699.0 | (622.5–797.0) | 0.753 |
| Efficient cautery (%) | 41.7 | (38.4–45.2) | 42.3 | (38.5–45.4) | 1.000 | |
| Safe cautery (%) | 61.5 | (47.5–65.0) | 58.4 | (47.3–63.9) | 0.678 | |
| Perforations (n) | 3.0 | (2.5–4.0) | 3.0 | (2.0–3.5) | 0.282 | |
| NMRI (n) | 511.0 | (445.5–547.5) | 489.0 | (462.5–559.0) | 0.860 | |
| NMLI (n) | 251.0 | (200.0–361.0) | 254.0 | (202.0–356.0) | 0.970 | |
| Task 4 (Session 2) | Total time (s) | 655.0 | (581.5–739.5) | 565.0 | (509.5–679.0) | 0.027 |
| Efficient cautery (%) | 45.8 | (42.2–51.1) | 58.8 | (54.9–63.6) | <0.0001 | |
| Safe cautery (%) | 64.2 | (52.2–69.5) | 70.4 | (64.6–78.6) | 0.014 | |
| Perforations (n) | 2.0 | (2.0–3.0) | 1.0 | (1.0–2.0) | 0.001 | |
| NMRI (n) | 456.0 | (400.0–515.5) | 371.0 | (329.5–417.0) | 0.006 | |
| NMLI (n) | 240.0 | (178.5–300.0) | 188.0 | (158.0–244.5) | 0.024 | |
IQR: Interquartile range; EMRI: economy of movement of right instrument; EMLI: economy of movement of left instrument;
NMRI: number of movements of right instrument; NMLI: number of movements of left instrument.
Percentage of improvement for Wii and Control Group between session 1 and session 2.
| Control Group | Wii Group | ||
| Performance Metric | Improvement (%) | Improvement (%) | |
| Task 1 | Total time | 6 | 21 |
| Accuracy rate | 10 | 83 | |
| Task 2 | Total time | 12 | 21 |
| Accuracy rate | 5 | 36 | |
| EMRI | 6 | 50 | |
| EMLI | 10 | 51 | |
| Task 3 | Total time | 14 | 22 |
| Balls collected | 2 | 10 | |
| EMRI | 20 | 75 | |
| EMLI | 23 | 88 | |
| Task 4 | Total time | 8 | 18 |
| Efficient cautery | 11 | 42 | |
| Safe cautery | 12 | 35 | |
| Perforations | 27 | 49 | |
| NMRI | 10 | 24 | |
| NMLI | 10 | 22 |
EMRI: economy of movement of right instrument; EMLI: economy of movement of left instrument;
NMRI: number of movements of right instrument; NMLI: number of movements of left instrument.
Figure 1Comparison of the results for laparoscopic basic skills of the two groups (index numbers).
Figure 2Comparison of the results for virtual full cholecystectomy of the two groups (index numbers).