Phillip M Kemp Bohan1, Christopher R Connelly2, Jeff Crawford2, Nathan W Bronson3, Martin A Schreiber2, Chris W Lucius3, John G Hunter2, Laszlo N Kiraly2, Bruce Ham2. 1. Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Surgery, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: pk98@dm.duke.edu. 2. Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Surgery, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Kaiser Permanente, Oregon/Washington Region, Department of General Surgery, Sunnyside Medical Center, Clackamas, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We developed a laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) simulation course for resident surgeons (RS) and practicing surgeons (PS). We hypothesized that course completion would provide LCBDE procedural skills and increase procedure utilization. METHODS: RS and PS were prospectively enrolled. Pre- and post-course ability were assessed with written examinations and LCBDE simulations. PS completed pre-course, post-course, and 1-year follow-up surveys (5-point Likert-type scale). RESULTS: 17 RS and 8 PS were enrolled. Median written test scores improved (70.0%-80.0%, p < 0.001) and median LCBDE simulation times (seconds) improved (585-314, p = 0.001) among all participants. Comparing RS and PS, median written assessment scores pre-course (70% vs 72.5%, p = 0.953) and post-course (77.5% vs 80.0%, p = 0.198) were not significantly different. Simulation completion times (seconds) improved similarly from pre-course (608.0 vs 521.5, p = 0.885) to post-course (314.0 vs 373.0, p = 0.287) between groups. PS comfort with LCBDE improved (2-4, p = 0.03). All PS reported LCBDE utilization 1 year post-course. CONCLUSIONS: The LCBDE course is appropriate for RS and PS. PS also reported increased comfort with LCBDE and procedure utilization.
BACKGROUND: We developed a laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) simulation course for resident surgeons (RS) and practicing surgeons (PS). We hypothesized that course completion would provide LCBDE procedural skills and increase procedure utilization. METHODS:RS and PS were prospectively enrolled. Pre- and post-course ability were assessed with written examinations and LCBDE simulations. PS completed pre-course, post-course, and 1-year follow-up surveys (5-point Likert-type scale). RESULTS: 17 RS and 8 PS were enrolled. Median written test scores improved (70.0%-80.0%, p < 0.001) and median LCBDE simulation times (seconds) improved (585-314, p = 0.001) among all participants. Comparing RS and PS, median written assessment scores pre-course (70% vs 72.5%, p = 0.953) and post-course (77.5% vs 80.0%, p = 0.198) were not significantly different. Simulation completion times (seconds) improved similarly from pre-course (608.0 vs 521.5, p = 0.885) to post-course (314.0 vs 373.0, p = 0.287) between groups. PS comfort with LCBDE improved (2-4, p = 0.03). All PS reported LCBDE utilization 1 year post-course. CONCLUSIONS: The LCBDE course is appropriate for RS and PS. PS also reported increased comfort with LCBDE and procedure utilization.