BACKGROUND:Virtual reality (VR) simulators are widely used to familiarize surgical novices with laparoscopy, but VR training methods differ in efficacy. In the present trial, self-controlled basic VR training (SC-training) was tested against training based on peer-group-derived benchmarks (PGD-training). METHODS: First, novice laparoscopic residents were randomized into a SC group (n = 34), and a group using PGD-benchmarks (n = 34) for basic laparoscopic training. After completing basic training, both groups performed 60 VR laparoscopic cholecystectomies for performance analysis. Primary endpoints were simulator metrics; secondary endpoints were program adherence, trainee motivation, and training efficacy. RESULTS: Altogether, 66 residents completed basic training, and 3,837 of 3,960 (96.8 %) cholecystectomies were available for analysis. Course adherence was good, with only two dropouts, both in the SC-group. The PGD-group spent more time and repetitions in basic training until the benchmarks were reached and subsequently showed better performance in the readout cholecystectomies: Median time (gallbladder extraction) showed significant differences of 520 s (IQR 354-738 s) in SC-training versus 390 s (IQR 278-536 s) in the PGD-group (p < 0.001) and 215 s (IQR 175-276 s) in experts, respectively. Path length of the right instrument also showed significant differences, again with the PGD-training group being more efficient. CONCLUSIONS:Basic VR laparoscopic training based on PGD benchmarks with external assessment is superior to SC training, resulting in higher trainee motivation and better performance in simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomies. We recommend such a basic course based on PGD benchmarks before advancing to more elaborate VR training.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) simulators are widely used to familiarize surgical novices with laparoscopy, but VR training methods differ in efficacy. In the present trial, self-controlled basic VR training (SC-training) was tested against training based on peer-group-derived benchmarks (PGD-training). METHODS: First, novice laparoscopic residents were randomized into a SC group (n = 34), and a group using PGD-benchmarks (n = 34) for basic laparoscopic training. After completing basic training, both groups performed 60 VR laparoscopic cholecystectomies for performance analysis. Primary endpoints were simulator metrics; secondary endpoints were program adherence, trainee motivation, and training efficacy. RESULTS: Altogether, 66 residents completed basic training, and 3,837 of 3,960 (96.8 %) cholecystectomies were available for analysis. Course adherence was good, with only two dropouts, both in the SC-group. The PGD-group spent more time and repetitions in basic training until the benchmarks were reached and subsequently showed better performance in the readout cholecystectomies: Median time (gallbladder extraction) showed significant differences of 520 s (IQR 354-738 s) in SC-training versus 390 s (IQR 278-536 s) in the PGD-group (p < 0.001) and 215 s (IQR 175-276 s) in experts, respectively. Path length of the right instrument also showed significant differences, again with the PGD-training group being more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Basic VR laparoscopic training based on PGD benchmarks with external assessment is superior to SC training, resulting in higher trainee motivation and better performance in simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomies. We recommend such a basic course based on PGD benchmarks before advancing to more elaborate VR training.
Authors: E C Hamilton; D J Scott; J B Fleming; R V Rege; R Laycock; P C Bergen; S T Tesfay; D B Jones Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2001-12-10 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Martin W von Websky; Martina Vitz; Dimitri A Raptis; R Rosenthal; P A Clavien; Dieter Hahnloser Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Koen W van Dongen; Gunnar Ahlberg; Luigi Bonavina; Fiona J Carter; Teodor P Grantcharov; Anders Hyltander; Marlies P Schijven; Alessandro Stefani; David C van der Zee; Ivo A M J Broeders Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Pamela B Andreatta; Derek T Woodrum; John D Birkmeyer; Rajani K Yellamanchilli; Gerard M Doherty; Paul G Gauger; Rebecca M Minter Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Dimitrios Stefanidis; Christina E Acker; Dawn Swiderski; B Todd Heniford; Frederick L Greene Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.891