Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski1, Andreas Minassian1, Jonathan David Hendrie1, Laura Benner2, Anas Amin Preukschas1, Hannes Götz Kenngott1, Lars Fischer1, Beat P Müller-Stich1, Felix Nickel3. 1. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. felix.nickel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no standards for optimal utilization of workplaces in laparoscopic training. This study aimed to define whether laparoscopy training should be done alone or in pairs (known as dyad training). METHODS: This was a three-arm randomized controlled trial with laparoscopically naïve medical students (n = 100). Intervention groups participated alone (n = 40) or as dyad (n = 40) in a multimodality training curriculum with e-learning, basic, and procedural skills training using box and VR trainers. The control group (n = 20) had no training. Post-performance of a cadaveric porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was measured as the primary outcome by blinded raters using the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). Global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS), time for LC, and VR performances were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups for performance scores [OSATS: alone (40.2 ± 9.8) vs. dyad (39.8 ± 8.6), p = 0.995; alone vs. control (37.1 ± 7.4), p = 0.548; or dyad vs. control, p = 0.590; and GOALS score: alone (10.6 ± 3.0) vs. dyad (10.0 ± 2.7), p = 0.599; alone vs. control (10.1 ± 3.0), p = 0.748; or dyad vs. control, p = 0.998]. Dyad finished LC faster than control [median = 62.5 min (CI 58.0-73.0) vs. 76.5 min (CI 72.0-80+); p = 0.042], while there were no inter-group differences between alone vs. control [median = 69.0 min (CI 62.0-76.0) vs. control; p = 0.099] or alone vs. dyad (p = 0.840). Dyad and alone showed superior performance on the VR trainer vs. control for time, number of movements, and path length, but not for complications and application of cautery. CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum provided trainees with the laparoscopic skills needed to perform LC safely, irrespective of the number of trainees per workplace. Dyad training reduced the operation time needed for LC. Therefore, dyad training seems to be a promising alternative, especially if training time is limited and resources must be used as efficiently as possible. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00004675.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There are no standards for optimal utilization of workplaces in laparoscopic training. This study aimed to define whether laparoscopy training should be done alone or in pairs (known as dyad training). METHODS: This was a three-arm randomized controlled trial with laparoscopically naïve medical students (n = 100). Intervention groups participated alone (n = 40) or as dyad (n = 40) in a multimodality training curriculum with e-learning, basic, and procedural skills training using box and VR trainers. The control group (n = 20) had no training. Post-performance of a cadaveric porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was measured as the primary outcome by blinded raters using the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). Global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS), time for LC, and VR performances were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups for performance scores [OSATS: alone (40.2 ± 9.8) vs. dyad (39.8 ± 8.6), p = 0.995; alone vs. control (37.1 ± 7.4), p = 0.548; or dyad vs. control, p = 0.590; and GOALS score: alone (10.6 ± 3.0) vs. dyad (10.0 ± 2.7), p = 0.599; alone vs. control (10.1 ± 3.0), p = 0.748; or dyad vs. control, p = 0.998]. Dyad finished LC faster than control [median = 62.5 min (CI 58.0-73.0) vs. 76.5 min (CI 72.0-80+); p = 0.042], while there were no inter-group differences between alone vs. control [median = 69.0 min (CI 62.0-76.0) vs. control; p = 0.099] or alone vs. dyad (p = 0.840). Dyad and alone showed superior performance on the VR trainer vs. control for time, number of movements, and path length, but not for complications and application of cautery. CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum provided trainees with the laparoscopic skills needed to perform LC safely, irrespective of the number of trainees per workplace. Dyad training reduced the operation time needed for LC. Therefore, dyad training seems to be a promising alternative, especially if training time is limited and resources must be used as efficiently as possible. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00004675.
Keywords:
Cholecystectomy; Dyad training; Education; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Training
Authors: Felix Nickel; Jonathan D Hendrie; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Thomas Bruckner; Carly R Garrow; Maisha Mantel; Hannes G Kenngott; Philipp Romero; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Felix Nickel; Jonathan D Hendrie; Christian Stock; Mohamed Salama; Anas A Preukschas; Jonas D Senft; Karl F Kowalewski; Martin Wagner; Hannes G Kenngott; Georg R Linke; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Eur Surg Res Date: 2016-04-09 Impact factor: 1.745
Authors: Felix Nickel; Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Florian Rehberger; Jonathan David Hendrie; Benjamin Friedrich Berthold Mayer; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Vasile Bintintan; Georg Richard Linke; Lars Fischer; Beat Peter Müller-Stich Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Roger Wahba; Rabi Raj Datta; Andrea Hedergott; Jana Bußhoff; Thomas Bruns; Robert Kleinert; Georg Dieplinger; Hans Fuchs; Caroline Gietzelt; Desdemona Möller; Martin Hellmich; Christiane J Bruns; Dirk L Stippel Journal: Trials Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: M W Schmidt; K F Köppinger; C Fan; K-F Kowalewski; L P Schmidt; J Vey; T Proctor; P Probst; V V Bintintan; B-P Müller-Stich; F Nickel Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-03-05
Authors: Gemma Humm; Helen Mohan; Christina Fleming; Rhiannon Harries; Christopher Wood; Khaled Dawas; Danail Stoyanov; Laurence B Lovat Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-07-07
Authors: C Wild; F Lang; A S Gerhäuser; M W Schmidt; K F Kowalewski; J Petersen; H G Kenngott; B P Müller-Stich; F Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.453
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