T W Pike1,2, S Pathak1, F Mushtaq3, R M Wilkie2, M Mon-Williams2, J P A Lodge1. 1. Department of HB and Transplant Surgery, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. 2. School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. 3. School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. f.mushtaq@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates that a preoperative warm-up is a potentially useful tool in facilitating performance. But what factors drive such improvements and how should a warm-up be implemented? METHODS: In order to address these issues, we adopted a two-pronged approach: (1) we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify existing studies utilising preoperative simulation techniques; (2) we performed task analysis to identify the constituent parts of effective warm-ups. We identified five randomised control trials, four randomised cross-over trials and four case series. The majority of these studies reviewed surgical performance following preoperative simulation relative to performance without simulation. RESULTS: Four studies reported outcome measures in real patients and the remainder reported simulated outcome measures. All but one of the studies found that preoperative simulation improves operative outcomes-but this improvement was not found across all measured parameters. While the reviewed studies had a number of methodological issues, the global data indicate that preoperative simulation has substantial potential to improve surgical performance. Analysis of the task characteristics of successful interventions indicated that the majority of these studies employed warm-ups that focused on the visual motor elements of surgery. However, there was no theoretical or empirical basis to inform the design of the intervention in any of these studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for a more rigorous approach to the development of "warm-up" routines if the potential value of preoperative simulation is to be understood and realised. We propose that such interventions need to be grounded in theory and empirical evidence on human motor performance.
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates that a preoperative warm-up is a potentially useful tool in facilitating performance. But what factors drive such improvements and how should a warm-up be implemented? METHODS: In order to address these issues, we adopted a two-pronged approach: (1) we conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify existing studies utilising preoperative simulation techniques; (2) we performed task analysis to identify the constituent parts of effective warm-ups. We identified five randomised control trials, four randomised cross-over trials and four case series. The majority of these studies reviewed surgical performance following preoperative simulation relative to performance without simulation. RESULTS: Four studies reported outcome measures in real patients and the remainder reported simulated outcome measures. All but one of the studies found that preoperative simulation improves operative outcomes-but this improvement was not found across all measured parameters. While the reviewed studies had a number of methodological issues, the global data indicate that preoperative simulation has substantial potential to improve surgical performance. Analysis of the task characteristics of successful interventions indicated that the majority of these studies employed warm-ups that focused on the visual motor elements of surgery. However, there was no theoretical or empirical basis to inform the design of the intervention in any of these studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for a more rigorous approach to the development of "warm-up" routines if the potential value of preoperative simulation is to be understood and realised. We propose that such interventions need to be grounded in theory and empirical evidence on human motor performance.
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Kathryn E Osann; Howard N Winfield; Kanav Kahol; Elspeth M McDougall Journal: J Endourol Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: S R Dawe; G N Pena; J A Windsor; J A J L Broeders; P C Cregan; P J Hewett; G J Maddern Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Ann T Do; Michael F Cabbad; Angela Kerr; Eli Serur; Robert R Robertazzi; Miljan R Stankovic Journal: JSLS Date: 2006 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Erik Leijte; Elke Arts; Bart Witteman; Jack Jakimowicz; Ivo De Blaauw; Sanne Botden Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Karima Khimani; Victoria Koshevarova; Alfred A Mathew; Akshaya K Gupta; Mary Schmitz-Brown; Praveena K Gupta Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2022-08-11
Authors: T W Pike; F Mushtaq; R P Mann; P Chambers; G Hall; J E Tomlinson; R Mir; R M Wilkie; M Mon-Williams; J P A Lodge Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Peter M Maloca; J Emanuel Ramos de Carvalho; Tjebo Heeren; Pascal W Hasler; Faisal Mushtaq; Mark Mon-Williams; Hendrik P N Scholl; Konstantinos Balaskas; Catherine Egan; Adnan Tufail; Lilian Witthauer; Philippe C Cattin Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 3.283