| Literature DB >> 33185847 |
Sandra Schönburg1, Petra Anheuser2, Jennifer Kranz3,4, Paolo Fornara3, Viktor Oubaid5.
Abstract
The rapid rise of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has necessitated an efficient and standardized training curriculum. Cognitive training (CT) can significantly improve skills, such as attention, working memory and problem solving, and can enhance surgical capacity and support RAS training. This pilot study was carried out between 02/2019 and 04/2019. The participants included 33 student volunteers, randomized into 3 groups: group 1 received training using the da Vinci training simulator, group 2 received computer-based cognitive training, and group 3 was the control group without training. Before (T1) and after-training (T2), performance was measured. Additionally, expert ratings and self-evaluations were collected. Subjective evaluations of performance were supplemented by evaluations based on three scales from the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). In total, 25 probands remained with complete data for further analyses: n = 8 (group 1), n = 7 (group 2) and n = 10 (group 3). There were no significant differences in T1 and T2 among all three groups. The average training gain of group 1 and 2 was 15.87% and 24.6%, respectively, (a restricting condition is the loss of the last training session in group 2). Analyses of semi-structured psychological interviews (SPIs) revealed no significant differences for T1, but in T2, significance occurred at 'self-reflection' for group 2 (F(2.22) = 8.56; p < .005). The efficacy of CT in training highly complex and difficult procedures, such as RAS, is a proven and accepted fact. Further investigation involving higher numbers of training trials (while also being cost effective) should be performed.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive training; Personal traits; Robotic surgery; Simulator training; Surgical training
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33185847 PMCID: PMC8423692 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01167-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Robot Surg ISSN: 1863-2483
Fig. 1Exercises at the beginning: a Lift two yellow and two black rings onto the respective screw. Time was measured, b Second exercise at the beginning: Sort 10 blue and 10 grey connectors. Time was measured, c Thread a yellow rubber loop through a grey connector and tie and tighten the loop. Time was measured
Fig. 2Flowsheet of the study: exercise at the beginning, training, and exercise for completion of the 3 groups (CT cognitive training, W week, SIM daVinci simulator)
Mean scores and standard deviations for time consumed in tests T1 and T2 for three groups
| da Vinci task T1 [sec] | da Vinci task T2 [sec] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MW | SD | MW | SD | |
| Group 1 ( | 305.02 | 90.33 | 286.61 | 88.16 |
| Group 2 ( | 389.65 | 283.15 | 499.39 | 192.45 |
| Group 3 ( | 244.07 | 62.41 | 284.69 | 42.79 |
Fig. 3Training success: a Mean scores (%) and standard deviations for DaVinci training (N = 7, group 1) for the start/end of eight daVinci training modules and a composite percentage measure (mean overall success), b mean scores (%) for three training modules (group 2 members only) for training sessions 1 to 5 (n = 7)
Correlations between personality measures, interview ratings after T2, and da Vinci performance
| NEO extraversion | NEO conscientiousness | SPI 2 | SPI 2 communication | da Vinci T1 [sec] | da Vinci T2 [sec] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEO extraversion | 1 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.26 |
| NEO conscientiousness | 0.23 | 1 | − 0.14 | − 0.04 | 0.26 | 0.17 |
SPI 2 self-reflection | 0.10 | − 0.14 | 1 | 0.79** | −0.40* | − 0.81** |
SPI 2 communication | 0.09 | − 0.04 | 0.79** | 1 | −0.44* | −0.60** |
| da Vinci T1 [sec] | 0.06 | 0.26 | − 0.40* | − 0.44* | 1 | 0.57** |
| da Vinci T2 [sec] | 0.26 | 0.17 | − 0.81** | − 0.60** | 0.57** | 1 |
*p = 0.05
**p = 0.001
Mean raw scores and standard deviations of NEO scales and SPI T2 measures groupwise
| NEO extraversion | NEO conscientiousness | NEO | SPI 2 | SPI 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MW | SD | MW | SD | MW | SD | MW | SD | MW | SD | |
| Group 1 ( | 3.40 | 0.46 | 3.72 | 0.50 | 3.80 | 0.33 | 4.21 | 0.32 | 3.79 | 0.38 |
| Group 2 ( | 3.46 | 0.44 | 3.70 | 0.29 | 3.60 | 0.47 | 3.62 | 0.86 | 3.33 | 0.79 |
| Group 3 ( | 3.49 | 0.47 | 3.75 | 0.38 | 3.55 | 0.29 | 4.23 | 0.66 | 3.85 | 0.82 |
Significant group differences: SPI 2; self-reflection: F(2;22) = 8.088, p = 0.002