| Literature DB >> 23475016 |
Carolina Pape-Koehler1, Marc Immenroth, Stefan Sauerland, Rolf Lefering, Cornelia Lindlohr, Jens Toaspern, Markus Heiss.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical procedures are complex motion sequences that require a high level of preparation, training, and concentration. In recent years, Internet platforms providing surgical content have been established. Used as a surgical training method, the effect of multimedia-based training on practical surgical skills has not yet been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of multimedia-based training on surgical performance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23475016 PMCID: PMC3624003 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2672-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Questionnaire
| Demographic questions |
|---|
| 1. Age |
| 2. Sex |
| 3. Date of approbation |
| Medical career |
| 1. Passed state exams |
| 2. Apprenticeship before medical school |
| 3. Start of surgical fellowship |
| 4. Discontinuation of surgical fellowship |
| 5. Surgical fellow |
| Surgical experience |
| 6. No. of assisted laparoscopic surgeries |
| 7. No. of self-performed laparoscopic surgeries |
| 8. No. of assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| 9. No. of self-performed laparoscopic cholecystectomies |
| 10 Attendance of a laparoscopic training course |
| General practical ability |
| 11. Experience in two-dimensional PC games |
| 12. Ability to eat with sticks |
| 13. Ability to sew a button |
Fig. 1A Homepage of www.webop.de. B (a) On www.webop.de, one procedural step is explained in a combination of text, illustration, and video. The trainee sees procedural step 6 (Clipping the cystic duct) of the chapter laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the Pelvi-Trainer (http://www.webop.de/surgeries/58?locale=en). (b) Use of the “start” icon starts the video explanation
Fig. 2Participant flow
Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS)
| Task-specific checklist |
|---|
| 1. Placement of trocars |
| 2. Exploration of the liver and display of the anatomic landmarks |
| 3. Fixation of the infundibulum |
| 4. Incision of the peritoneal layer on the infundibulum |
| 5. Exposure of the cystic duct or cystic artery |
| 6. Clipping of the cystic duct |
| 7. Cutting of the cystic duct |
| 8. Clipping of the cystic artery |
| 9. Cutting of the cystic artery |
| 10. Subserous shelling out of the gallbladder |
| 11. Inspection of the liver bed |
| 12. Recovering of the gallbladder in the salvage bag |
| Global rating scale |
| • Respect for tissue |
| • Time and motion |
| • Handling of instruments |
| • Flow of motion |
| • Knowledge of procedure |
Fig. 3Factorial study design
Baseline data of participants
| Multimedia-based training ( | Practical training ( | Combination training ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (female/male) | 9/9 | 10/7 | 8/10 | 10/7 |
| Age (years) | 29 ± 3.6 | 27 ± 2.8 | 29 ± 3.9 | 28 ± 3.5 |
| MD/student | 13/5 | 9/8 | 11/7 | 8/9 |
| No. of laparoscopic surgeriesa | 17/1 | 16/1 | 16/2 | 17/0 |
aSelf-performed laparoscopic surgeries; see question 7 of the questionnaire; the answers were given in a range of 1–3 and 4–6 (e.g., in the practical training group, 16 participants had an experience of 1–3 laparoscopic surgeries and 1 participant had an experience of 4–6 laparoscopic surgeries
Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) results
| OSATS | Test | Multimedia-based training ( | Practical training ( | Combination training ( | Control group ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task-specific checklist | Pretest | 6.6 ± 2.8 | 5.5 ± 3.7 | 5.8 ± 3.3 | 5.5 ± 2.8 |
| Posttest | 11.2 ± 1.4 | 8.0 ± 3.2 | 10.4 ± 2.0 | 6.3 ± 3.2 | |
| ΔOSATS | 4.7 ± 3.3 ( | 2.5 ± 4.3 ( | 4.6 ± 3.5 ( | 0.8 ± 2.9 ( | |
| Global rating scale | Pretest | 13.6 ± 5.1 | 11.9 ± 4.5 | 12.5 ± 5.9 | 12.1 ± 4.0 |
| Posttest | 20.6 ± 3.1 | 15.9 ± 3.5 | 20.4 ± 3.4 | 13.9 ± 3.7 | |
| ΔOSATS | 6.9 ± 5.4 ( | 4.1 ± 4.1 ( | 7.9 ± 6.4 ( | 1.9 ± 4.4 ( |
aStatistically significant
bNot statistically significant
Fig. 4Pre- and posttest objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) values
Results of the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) task-specific checklist (detail)
| OSATS | Multimedia-based training | Practical training | Combination training | Control group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task-specific checklista | ( | ( | ( | ( |
| 1. Placement of trocars | 100→100 | 88→100 | 89→100 | 88→94 |
| 2. Exploration of the liver and display of the anatomic landmarks | 94→100 | 88→82 | 89→100 | 82→64 |
| 3. Fixation of the infundibulum | 50→100 | 47→82 | 56→100 | 47→71 |
| 4. Incision of the peritoneal layer on the infundibulum | 44→100 | 47→82 | 44→100 | 17→70 |
| 5. Exposure of the cystic duct and cystic artery | 33→100 | 23→58 | 28→72 | 17→23 |
| 6. Clipping of the cystic duct | 61→100 | 41→59 | 39→89 | 53→53 |
| 7. Cutting of the cystic duct | 56→100 | 35→70 | 44→89 | 53→47 |
| 8. Clipping of the cystic artery | 17→78 | 23→41 | 22→66 | 17→17 |
| 9. Cutting the cystic artery | 17→78 | 23→35 | 22→66 | 17→17 |
| 10. Subserous shelling out of the gallbladder | 88→94 | 47→71 | 55→94 | 53→59 |
| 11. Inspection of the liver bed | 39→89 | 23→35 | 33→89 | 41→23 |
| 12. Recovery of the gallbladder in the salvage bag | 55→83 | 59→83 | 61→78 | 64→88 |
aTask-specific checklist data for each procedural step for all four groups: the first number is the pretest value and the number after the arrow is the posttest value
Results of the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) global rating scale (detail)
| ΔOSATS | Multimedia-based training ( | Practical training ( | Combination training ( | Control group ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global rating scalea | ||||
| Respect for tissue | 1.2 ± 1.7 | 0.5 ± 1.2 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | 0.1 ± 1.3 |
| Time and motion | 1.3 ± 1.2 | 0.9 ± 1.0 | 1.4 ± 1.3 | 0.7 ± 1.1 |
| Handling of instruments | 1.4 ± 1.2 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | 1.7 ± 1.4 | 0.2 ± 1.4 |
| Flow of motion | 1.2 ± 1.1 | 1.0 ± 1.1 | 1.6 ± 1.3 | 0.3 ± 1.2 |
| Knowledge of procedure | 1.8 ± 1.2 | 0.9 ± 1.4 | 1.9 ± 1.4 | 0.6 ± 1.0 |
aGlobal rating scale data for each rated detail for all four groups as mean ± standard deviation. Shown is the improvement from pre- to posttest value: Δ