Christopher Awtrey1, Amine Chellali2, Steven Schwaitzberg3, Suvranu De4, Daniel Jones5, Caroline Cao6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: cawtrey@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Computer Engineering, IBISC Laboratory, University of Evry, Evry, France; Department of Surgery, Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Surgery, Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 4. Center for Modeling, Simulation and Imaging in Medicine, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 5. Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To validate the Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Skill Trainer (VBLaST-PT; the peg transfer task) for concurrent validity based on its ability to differentiate between novice, intermediate, and expert groups of gynecologists, and the gynecologists' subjective preference between the physical Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) system and the virtual reality system. DESIGN: Prospective study (Canadian Task Force II-2). SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Obstetrics and gynecology residents (n = 18) and attending gynecologists (n = 9). INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-seven subjects were divided into 3 groups: novices (n = 9), intermediates (n = 9), and experts (n = 9). All subjects performed 10 trials of the peg transfer on each simulator. Assessment of laparoscopic performance was based on FLS scoring, whereas a questionnaire was used for subjective evaluation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The performance scores in the 2 simulators were nearly identical. Experts performed better than intermediates and novices in both the FLS trainer and the VBLAST, and intermediates performed better than novices in both simulators. The results also show a significant learning effect on both trainers for all subgroups; however, the greatest learning effect was in the novice group for both trainers. Subjectively, 74% participants preferred the FLS over the VBLaST for training laparoscopic surgical skills. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the peg transfer task was reproduced well in the VBLaST in gynecologic surgeons and trainees. The VBLaST has the potential to be a valuable tool in laparoscopic training for gynecologic surgeons.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To validate the Virtual Basic Laparoscopic Skill Trainer (VBLaST-PT; the peg transfer task) for concurrent validity based on its ability to differentiate between novice, intermediate, and expert groups of gynecologists, and the gynecologists' subjective preference between the physical Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) system and the virtual reality system. DESIGN: Prospective study (Canadian Task Force II-2). SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Obstetrics and gynecology residents (n = 18) and attending gynecologists (n = 9). INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-seven subjects were divided into 3 groups: novices (n = 9), intermediates (n = 9), and experts (n = 9). All subjects performed 10 trials of the peg transfer on each simulator. Assessment of laparoscopic performance was based on FLS scoring, whereas a questionnaire was used for subjective evaluation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The performance scores in the 2 simulators were nearly identical. Experts performed better than intermediates and novices in both the FLS trainer and the VBLAST, and intermediates performed better than novices in both simulators. The results also show a significant learning effect on both trainers for all subgroups; however, the greatest learning effect was in the novice group for both trainers. Subjectively, 74% participants preferred the FLS over the VBLaST for training laparoscopic surgical skills. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the peg transfer task was reproduced well in the VBLaST in gynecologic surgeons and trainees. The VBLaST has the potential to be a valuable tool in laparoscopic training for gynecologic surgeons.
Authors: Rajiv Gala; Francisco Orejuela; Kim Gerten; Ernest Lockrow; Charles Kilpatrick; Lubna Chohan; Charles Green; Jessica Vaught; Aaron Goldberg; Joseph Schaffer Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Juliënne A Janse; Ruben S A Goedegebuure; Sebastiaan Veersema; Frank J M Broekmans; Henk W R Schreuder Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Elena Tunitsky-Bitton; Cara R King; Beri Ridgeway; Matthew D Barber; Ted Lee; Tyler Muffly; Marie F Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Danielle D Antosh; Tamika Auguste; Elizabeth A George; Andrew I Sokol; Robert E Gutman; Cheryl B Iglesia; Sameer Y Desale; Amy J Park Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Lucian Panait; Ehab Akkary; Robert L Bell; Kurt E Roberts; Stanley J Dudrick; Andrew J Duffy Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Deborah Arden; Michele R Hacker; Daniel B Jones; Christopher S Awtrey Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Venkata S Arikatla; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Woojin Ahn; Amine Chellali; Suvranu De; G L Caroline; John Hwabejire; Marc DeMoya; Steven Schwaitzberg; Daniel B Jones Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Likun Zhang; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Venkata Sreekanth Arikatla; Woojin Ahn; Cristol Grosdemouge; Jesse M Rideout; Scott K Epstein; Suvranu De; Steven D Schwaitzberg; Daniel B Jones; Caroline G L Cao Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Henry Lin; Venkata S Arikatla; Maureen Mulcare; Likun Zhang; Alexandre Derevianko; Robert Lim; David Fobert; Caroline Cao; Steven D Schwaitzberg; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 1.878