Sandeep Krishan Nayar1,2, Liam Musto3, Roland Fernandes3, Rasiah Bharathan4. 1. Department of General Surgery, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK. sandeep.nayar@doctors.org.uk. 2. Maidstone Hospital, Hermitage Lane, Maidstone, ME16 9QQ, UK. sandeep.nayar@doctors.org.uk. 3. Department of General Surgery, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK. 4. Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Maidstone, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) simulation is a vital component of surgical training with demonstrated improvements in surgical quality and clinical outcome. AIMS: To validate the LAP Mentor (Simbionix™) laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) VR simulator with inclusion of a novel tool, Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA). METHODS: Thirty-two novices and nine experienced surgeons performed two simulated LAs. An expert-consensus questionnaire guided face validity assessment. Content validity was assessed using CTA-derived questions encompassing eight operative steps and four decision points. Construct validity was evaluated using dexterity metrics, masked assessment of surgical quality using the OSATS global rating scale, and mental workload from two validated tools: the NASA-TLX and SMEQ. Ten novices performed eight further LAs for learning curve assessment. RESULTS: Face validity was demonstrated across all domains. Considering content validity, the essential technical and non-technical steps were evident. The experienced group performed the procedure quicker (median time 361 vs. 538 s, P = 0.0039) with fewer total movements (426 vs. 641, P < 0.0001) and shorter idle time (131 vs. 199 s, P = 0.0006). This correlated with higher OSATS scores (median 33.5 vs. 22.2, P < 0.0001) and lower mental demand (NASA-TLX: 9.0 vs. 13.75, P = 0.012; SMEQ: 60 vs. 80, P = 0.0025), indicating construct validity. Learning curve data showed statistically significant improvements after the 7th session for procedure time, total movements and idle time, which correlated with reduction in mental demand. CONCLUSIONS: The LAP Mentor demonstrates face, content and construct validity for LA; thus, it can be used as an effective tool in surgical training. Task repetition leads to achievement of expert benchmarks.
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) simulation is a vital component of surgical training with demonstrated improvements in surgical quality and clinical outcome. AIMS: To validate the LAP Mentor (Simbionix™) laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) VR simulator with inclusion of a novel tool, Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA). METHODS: Thirty-two novices and nine experienced surgeons performed two simulated LAs. An expert-consensus questionnaire guided face validity assessment. Content validity was assessed using CTA-derived questions encompassing eight operative steps and four decision points. Construct validity was evaluated using dexterity metrics, masked assessment of surgical quality using the OSATS global rating scale, and mental workload from two validated tools: the NASA-TLX and SMEQ. Ten novices performed eight further LAs for learning curve assessment. RESULTS: Face validity was demonstrated across all domains. Considering content validity, the essential technical and non-technical steps were evident. The experienced group performed the procedure quicker (median time 361 vs. 538 s, P = 0.0039) with fewer total movements (426 vs. 641, P < 0.0001) and shorter idle time (131 vs. 199 s, P = 0.0006). This correlated with higher OSATS scores (median 33.5 vs. 22.2, P < 0.0001) and lower mental demand (NASA-TLX: 9.0 vs. 13.75, P = 0.012; SMEQ: 60 vs. 80, P = 0.0025), indicating construct validity. Learning curve data showed statistically significant improvements after the 7th session for procedure time, total movements and idle time, which correlated with reduction in mental demand. CONCLUSIONS: The LAP Mentor demonstrates face, content and construct validity for LA; thus, it can be used as an effective tool in surgical training. Task repetition leads to achievement of expert benchmarks.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ferdinando Agresta; Paolo De Simone; Leonardo Leone; Alberto Arezzo; Antonio Biondi; Luca Bottero; Fausto Catena; Giovanni Conzo; Gianmattia Del Genio; Alberto Fersini; Mario Guerrieri; Giovanni Illomei; Pietro Tonelli; Marco Vitellaro; Giovanni Docimo; Antonio Crucitti Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Anthony G Gallagher; E Matt Ritter; Howard Champion; Gerald Higgins; Marvin P Fried; Gerald Moses; C Daniel Smith; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John A Aucar; Nicholas R Groch; Scott A Troxel; Steve W Eubanks Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: Rajesh Aggarwal; Teodor P Grantcharov; Jens R Eriksen; Dorthe Blirup; Viggo B Kristiansen; Peter Funch-Jensen; Ara Darzi Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ulrich Guller; Sheleika Hervey; Harriett Purves; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Eric D Peterson; Steve Eubanks; Ricardo Pietrobon Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: George C Velmahos; Konstantinos G Toutouzas; Lelan F Sillin; Linda Chan; Richard E Clark; Demetrios Theodorou; Fredric Maupin Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.565