Literature DB >> 25687957

Conventional Laparoscopic vs Robotic Training: Which is Better for Naive Users? A Randomized Prospective Crossover Study.

Syed Omar Hassan1, Jaimin Dudhia1, Labiq H Syed1, Kalpesh Patel2, Maham Farshidpour1, Steven C Cunningham1, Gopal C Kowdley3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Robotic training (RT) using the da Vinci skills simulator and conventional training (CT) using a laparoscopic "training box" are both used to augment operative skills in minimally invasive surgery. The current study tests the hypothesis that skill acquisition is more rapid using RT than using CT among naive learners. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 40 subjects without laparoscopic or robotic surgical experience were enrolled and randomized to begin with either RT or CT. Then, 2 specific RT tasks were reproduced for CT and repeated 5 times each with RT and CT. Time and quality indicators were measured quantitatively. A crossover technique was used to control for in-study experience bias.
RESULTS: The tasks "pick and place jacks" (PP) and "thread the rings" (TR) were achieved faster with RT than with CT despite crossover (p < 0.0001). An RT-favoring difference was observed in speed for both tasks when changing modality. Percentage improvement with increasing trials was similar for RT and CT: RT completion time averaged 39 seconds and 211 seconds (PP and TR, respectively), compared with 65 seconds and 362 seconds when using CT (p < 0.0001); final improvement averaged 26% and 46% for RT (PP and TR, respectively) vs 31% and 47% for CT (p was 0.76 for PP and 0.20 for TR). Within the PP task, RT times averaged 41 seconds without previous CT experience vs 35 seconds with previous CT experience (p = 0.20); CT times averaged 61 seconds without and 69 seconds with previous RT experience (p = 0.48). Comparable times for the TR task were 212 seconds vs 216 seconds (p = 0.66) and 388 seconds vs 334 seconds (p = 0.17). Both instrument collisions and excessive force occurred more commonly for RT than for CT within the TR task (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Speeds were faster overall with RT than with CT, but the percentage of speed improvement with trials was similar, suggesting similar learning curves, with minimal transfer effect appreciated.
Copyright © 2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medical Knowledge; Patient Care; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; conventional laparoscopy; efficient; learning curve; naive; robotic training; transfer effect

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25687957     DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Educ        ISSN: 1878-7452            Impact factor:   2.891


  8 in total

1.  Distraction and proficiency in laparoscopy: 2D versus robotic console 3D immersion.

Authors:  Steven Kim; Audriene May; Heidi Ryan; Adnan Mohsin; Shawn Tsuda
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Laparoscopic and robotic skills are transferable in a simulation setting: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lauren Thomaier; Megan Orlando; Melinda Abernethy; Chandhana Paka; Chi Chiung Grace Chen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Comparison of 8 and 5 mm robotic instruments in small cavities : 5 or 8 mm robotic instruments for small cavities?

Authors:  Quentin Ballouhey; Pauline Clermidi; Jérôme Cros; Céline Grosos; Clémence Rosa-Arsène; Claire Bahans; François Caire; Bernard Longis; Roxane Compagnon; Laurent Fourcade
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Medical student experience with robot-assisted surgery after limited laparoscopy exposure.

Authors:  Nasit Vurgun; Tanawat Vongsurbchart; Aneta Myszka; Piotr Richter; Tomasz Rogula
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-07-23

5.  Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center.

Authors:  Antoine Netter; Camille Jauffret; Clément Brun; Laura Sabiani; Guillaume Blache; Gilles Houvenaeghel; Eric Lambaudie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Low versus high level of physical resemblance in simulation for the acquisition of basic surgical skill: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Fabrizio Consorti; Gianmarco Panzera
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2021-03-05

7.  Ensuring safety and feasibility for resection of pediatric benign ovarian tumors by single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci Xi system.

Authors:  Deqiang Xu; Heyun Gao; Shanzhen Yu; Guangbin Huang; Dan Lu; Kun Yang; Wei Zhang; Wen Zhang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-08-19

8.  Effect of visual feedback during laparoscopic basic training using a box trainer with a transparent top.

Authors:  Kosei Maemura; Yuko Mataki; Hiroshi Kurahara; Yota Kawasaki; Shinichirou Mori; Satoshi Iino; Masahiko Sakoda; Shinichi Ueno; Hiroyuki Shinchi; Shoji Natsugoe
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2017-06-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.