Literature DB >> 25913053

Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices.

Carlo C Passerotti1, Felipe Franco, Julio C C Bissoli, Bruno Tiseo, Caio M Oliveira, Carlos A O Buchalla, Gustavo N C Inoue, Arzu Sencan, Aydin Sencan, Rogerio Ruscitto do Pardo, Hiep T Nguyen.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Robotic assistance may provide for distinct technical advantages over conventional laparoscopic technique. The goals of this study were (1) to objectively evaluate the difference in the learning curves by novice and expert surgeons in performing fundamental laparoscopic skills using conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and (2) to evaluate the surgeons' frustration level in performing these tasks.
METHODS: Twelve experienced and 31 novices in laparoscopy were prospectively evaluated in performing three standardized laparoscopic tasks in five consecutive, weekly training sessions. Analysis of the learning curves was based on the magnitude, rate, and quickness in performance improvement. The participant's frustration and mood were also evaluated during and after every session.
RESULTS: For the novice participants, RALS allowed for shorter time to task completion and greater accuracy. However, significant and rapid improvement in performance as measured by magnitude, rate, and quickness at each session was also seen with CLS. For the experienced surgeons, RALS only provided a slight improvement in performance. For all participants, the use of RALS was associated with less number of sessions in which they felt frustrated, less number of frustration episodes during a session, lower frustration score during and after the session, and higher good mood score.
CONCLUSION: The advantages of RALS may be of most benefit when doing more complex tasks and by less experienced surgeons. RALS should not be used as a replacement for CLS but rather in specific situations in which it has the greatest advantages.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25913053     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-015-0991-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  20 in total

1.  Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced, junior, and novice laparoscopists with virtual reality.

Authors:  A G Gallagher; K Richie; N McClure; J McGuigan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Robot-assisted abdominal surgery.

Authors:  C N Gutt; T Oniu; A Mehrabi; A Kashfi; P Schemmer; M W Büchler
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills.

Authors:  Melina C Vassiliou; Liane S Feldman; Christopher G Andrew; Simon Bergman; Karen Leffondré; Donna Stanbridge; Gerald M Fried
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Negative stress-coping strategies among novices in surgery correlate with poor virtual laparoscopic performance.

Authors:  I Hassan; P Weyers; K Maschuw; B Dick; B Gerdes; M Rothmund; A Zielke
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices.

Authors:  Venita Chandra; Deepika Nehra; Richard Parent; Russell Woo; Rosette Reyes; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Sanjeev Dutta
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; Fikre Wang; James R Korndorffer; J Bruce Dunne; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks.

Authors:  Timothy N Judkins; Dmitry Oleynikov; Nick Stergiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Comparison of learning curves and skill transfer between classical and robotic laparoscopy according to the viewing conditions: implications for training.

Authors:  Adélaïde Blavier; Quentin Gaudissart; Guy-Bernard Cadière; Anne-Sophie Nyssen
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery.

Authors:  Genevieve Dulan; Robert V Rege; Deborah C Hogg; Kristine M Gilberg-Fisher; Nabeel A Arain; Seifu T Tesfay; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Laparoscopic skills training.

Authors:  D J Scott; W N Young; S T Tesfay; W H Frawley; R V Rege; D B Jones
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The Flipped Classroom - From Theory to Practice in Health Professional Education.

Authors:  Adam M Persky; Jacqueline E McLaughlin
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  Comparison of Laparoscopic Steerable Instruments Performed by Expert Surgeons and Novices.

Authors:  Luca Lacitignola; Rodrigo Trisciuzzi; Annarita Imperante; Laura Fracassi; Alberto Maria Crovace; Francesco Staffieri
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2020-09-15

3.  Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting.

Authors:  Erik Leijte; Ivo de Blaauw; Frans Van Workum; Camiel Rosman; Sanne Botden
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study.

Authors:  E Willuth; S F Hardon; F Lang; C M Haney; E A Felinska; K F Kowalewski; B P Müller-Stich; T Horeman; F Nickel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.584

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.