Siska Van Bruwaene1, Marlies P Schijven2, Daniel Napolitano3, Gunter De Win4, Marc Miserez5. 1. Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: siska.vanbruwaene@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Universidad Catolica de Cordoba, Córdoba, Argentina. 4. Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Urology, University Hospitals Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. 5. Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As conventional laparoscopic procedural training requires live animals or cadaver organs, virtual simulation seems an attractive alternative. Therefore, we compared the transfer of training for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy from porcine cadaver organs vs virtual simulation to surgery in a live animal model in a prospective randomized trial. DESIGN: After completing an intensive training in basic laparoscopic skills, 3 groups of 10 participants proceeded with no additional training (control group), 5 hours of cholecystectomy training on cadaver organs (= organ training) or proficiency-based cholecystectomy training on the LapMentor (= virtual-reality training). Participants were evaluated on time and quality during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a live anaesthetized pig at baseline, 1 week (= post) and 4 months (= retention) after training. SETTING: All research was performed in the Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 30 volunteering medical students without prior experience in laparoscopy or minimally invasive surgery from the University of Leuven (Belgium). RESULTS: The organ training group performed the procedure significantly faster than the virtual trainer and borderline significantly faster than control group at posttesting. Only 1 of 3 expert raters suggested significantly better quality of performance of the organ training group compared with both the other groups at posttesting (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups at retention testing. The virtual trainer group did not outperform the control group at any time. CONCLUSIONS: For trainees who are proficient in basic laparoscopic skills, the long-term advantage of additional procedural training, especially on a virtual but also on the conventional organ training model, remains to be proven.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: As conventional laparoscopic procedural training requires live animals or cadaver organs, virtual simulation seems an attractive alternative. Therefore, we compared the transfer of training for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy from porcine cadaver organs vs virtual simulation to surgery in a live animal model in a prospective randomized trial. DESIGN: After completing an intensive training in basic laparoscopic skills, 3 groups of 10 participants proceeded with no additional training (control group), 5 hours of cholecystectomy training on cadaver organs (= organ training) or proficiency-based cholecystectomy training on the LapMentor (= virtual-reality training). Participants were evaluated on time and quality during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a live anaesthetized pig at baseline, 1 week (= post) and 4 months (= retention) after training. SETTING: All research was performed in the Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 30 volunteering medical students without prior experience in laparoscopy or minimally invasive surgery from the University of Leuven (Belgium). RESULTS: The organ training group performed the procedure significantly faster than the virtual trainer and borderline significantly faster than control group at posttesting. Only 1 of 3 expert raters suggested significantly better quality of performance of the organ training group compared with both the other groups at posttesting (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups at retention testing. The virtual trainer group did not outperform the control group at any time. CONCLUSIONS: For trainees who are proficient in basic laparoscopic skills, the long-term advantage of additional procedural training, especially on a virtual but also on the conventional organ training model, remains to be proven.
Authors: Daniel M Costello; Isabel Huntington; Grace Burke; Brooke Farrugia; Andrea J O'Connor; Anthony J Costello; Benjamin C Thomas; Philip Dundee; Ahmed Ghazi; Niall Corcoran Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-09-03
Authors: Rachel Melnyk; Bahie Ezzat; Elizabeth Belfast; Patrick Saba; Shamroz Farooq; Timothy Campbell; Stephen McAleavey; Mark Buckley; Ahmed Ghazi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ferdinand Köckerling; Michael Pass; Petra Brunner; Matthias Hafermalz; Stefan Grund; Joerg Sauer; Volker Lange; Wolfgang Schröder Journal: Front Surg Date: 2016-08-09
Authors: Gemma Humm; Helen Mohan; Christina Fleming; Rhiannon Harries; Christopher Wood; Khaled Dawas; Danail Stoyanov; Laurence B Lovat Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-07-07
Authors: João Victor Taba; Vitor Santos Cortez; Walter Augusto Moraes; Leandro Ryuchi Iuamoto; Wu Tu Hsing; Milena Oliveira Suzuki; Fernanda Sayuri do Nascimento; Leonardo Zumerkorn Pipek; Vitoria Carneiro de Mattos; Eugênia Carneiro D'Albuquerque; Luiz Augusto Carneiro-D'Albuquerque; Alberto Meyer; Wellington Andraus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240