Literature DB >> 26377602

Homemade laparoscopic surgical simulator: a cost-effective solution to the challenge of acquiring laparoscopic skills?

A Aslam1, G J Nason2, S K Giri1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is well known to have a long and variable learning curve and there is a potential benefit from earlier integration of laparoscopic skills in medical education. AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the challenges facing surgical trainees regarding the acquisition of laparoscopic skills and second to assess their opinion regarding the use of a homemade laparoscopic surgical simulator.
METHODS: A homemade laparoscopic surgical simulator (HLSS) was constructed. An online survey using Survey Monkey® of surgical trainees at a tertiary referral university teaching hospital was conducted assessing their experience with laparoscopic surgery. Surgical trainees were voluntarily enrolled to assess the self-designed laparoscopic trainer. Each trainee was asked to perform simple exercises without supervision.
RESULTS: All trainees (n = 34) responded to the survey. No trainee had full-time access to a laparoscopic box trainer. The mean time spent per week using the simulator was 0.38 h (range 0-3 h), with 61.8 % (n = 21) reporting not using the simulator at all. 94.1 % (n = 32) enrolled in our study. 90.6 % (n = 29) found the HLSS easy to use compared to 93.8 % (n = 30) with the CLS (p = 1.00). 96.9 % (n = 31) reported an overall satisfaction with the HLSS. There was no difference with regard to the completing the tasks: peg transfer (78.1 vs 78.1 %, p = 1.00), cutting patterns (65.6 vs 71.9 %, p = 0.788) or knot tying (12.5 vs 18.8 %, p = 0.732) whether using HLSS and the CLS.
CONCLUSION: Homemade laparoscopic surgical simulators are easy to construct, affordable, usable and of interest to trainees.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Box trainers; Laparoscopy; Simulation; Surgical training

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26377602     DOI: 10.1007/s11845-015-1357-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ir J Med Sci        ISSN: 0021-1265            Impact factor:   1.568


  39 in total

Review 1.  Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review.

Authors:  H W R Schreuder; R Wolswijk; R P Zweemer; M P Schijven; R H M Verheijen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  Voluntary autonomous simulator based training in minimally invasive surgery, residents' compliance and reflection.

Authors:  Pieter J van Empel; Mathilde G E Verdam; Magnus Strypet; Lennart B van Rijssen; Judith A Huirne; Fedde Scheele; H Jaap Bonjer; W Jeroen Meijerink
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.891

3.  Short-term outcomes following laparoscopic resection for colon cancer.

Authors:  Dara O Kavanagh; David Gibson; Diarmaid C Moran; Myles Smith; Kate O Donnell; Emmanuel Eguare; Frank B V Keane; Diarmaid S O Riordain; Paul C Neary
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Analysing the operative experience of basic surgical trainees in Ireland using a web-based logbook.

Authors:  Peter E Lonergan; Jurgen Mulsow; W Arthur Tanner; Oscar Traynor; Sean Tierney
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2011-09-25       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  The impact of aptitude on the learning curve for laparoscopic suturing.

Authors:  Christina E Buckley; Dara O Kavanagh; Emmeline Nugent; Donncha Ryan; Oscar J Traynor; Paul C Neary
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Surgical resident evaluations of portable laparoscopic box trainers incorporated into a simulation-based minimally invasive surgery curriculum.

Authors:  Matthew A C Zapf; Michael B Ujiki
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 2.058

7.  Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jeanett Strandbygaard; Flemming Bjerrum; Mathilde Maagaard; Per Winkel; Christian Rifbjerg Larsen; Charlotte Ringsted; Christian Gluud; Teodor Grantcharov; Bent Ottesen; Jette Led Sorensen
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Effect of instructor feedback on skills retention after laparoscopic simulator training: follow-up of a randomized trial.

Authors:  Flemming Bjerrum; Mathilde Maagaard; Jette Led Sorensen; Christian Rifbjerg Larsen; Charlotte Ringsted; Per Winkel; Bent Ottesen; Jeanett Strandbygaard
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2014-08-16       Impact factor: 2.891

9.  Robotic surgery training in gynecologic fellowship programs in the United States.

Authors:  Soorena Fatehchehr; Ghazaleh Rostaminia; Michael O Gardner; Elisa Ramunno; Nora M Doyle
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 10.  Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Myura Nagendran; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Rajesh Aggarwal; Marilena Loizidou; Brian R Davidson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-08-27
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Novel Education and Simulation Tools in Urologic Training.

Authors:  Brandon S Childs; Marc D Manganiello; Ruslan Korets
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Development and Validation of a Homemade, Low-Cost Laparoscopic Simulator for Resident Surgeons (LABOT).

Authors:  Domenico Soriero; Giulia Atzori; Fabio Barra; Davide Pertile; Andrea Massobrio; Luigi Conti; Dario Gusmini; Lorenzo Epis; Maurizio Gallo; Filippo Banchini; Patrizio Capelli; Veronica Penza; Stefano Scabini
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Homemade laparoscopic simulator.

Authors:  Thiago da Costa Travassos; Edison Daniel Schneider-Monteiro; André Meirelles Dos Santos; Leonardo Oliveira Reis
Journal:  Acta Cir Bras       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 1.388

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.