Garrett G R J Johnson1,2, Jason Park3, Ashley Vergis1, Lawrence M Gillman1, Justin D Rivard4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Section of General Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 2. Clinician Investigator Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Department of Surgery, Section of General Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. jrivard@hsc.mb.ca. 5. Health Sciences Centre, GF436C-820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3A 1R9, Canada. jrivard@hsc.mb.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Past education literature has shown benefits for random practice schedules (termed contextual interference) for skills retention and transfer to novel tasks. The purpose of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) training is to develop skills in simulation and transfer to new in vivo intraoperative experiences. The study objective was to assess whether individuals trained over a fixed number of trials in the FLS tasks would outperform untrained controls on an unpracticed previously validated bile duct cannulation task and scoring system and to determine whether random training schedules conferred any relative advantage. METHODS: 44 trainees with no laparoscopic experience were recruited to participate. 35 were randomized to practice the FLS tasks using either a blocked or random training schedule. Nine were randomized to no additional training (controls). Participant performance was measured throughout training to monitor skills acquisition and were then tested on an unpracticed bile duct cannulation simulation task 4 to 6 weeks later. Outcomes included previously validated FLS scores and hand-motion analyses. RESULTS: All 44 participants completed the study. Trained individuals in both groups showed significant improvements in all FLS tasks after training. There were no differences between groups in performance on the cannulation task median scores (Blocked: 89.8 [IQR:37.6]; Random: 83.2 [32.3]; Control: 83.6 [19.1]; p = 0.955), number of hand motions (Blocked: 42.5 [IQR:130.3]; Random: 75.3 [111.3]; Control: 63.0 [71.8]; p = 0.912), or distance traveled by participants hands (Blocked: 2.0 m [IQR:5.8]; Random: 3.8 [8.9]; Control: 2.6 [2.5]; p = 0.816). Cannulation task performance had no correlation with total FLS performance, R2 linear = 0.014, p = 0.445. CONCLUSIONS: Skills acquired from conventional FLS tasks did not effectively transfer to a laparoscopic bile duct cannulation task. Neither blocked nor random practice schedules conferred a relative advantage. These findings provide evidence that cannulation is a distinct skill from what is taught and assessed in FLS.
INTRODUCTION: Past education literature has shown benefits for random practice schedules (termed contextual interference) for skills retention and transfer to novel tasks. The purpose of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) training is to develop skills in simulation and transfer to new in vivo intraoperative experiences. The study objective was to assess whether individuals trained over a fixed number of trials in the FLS tasks would outperform untrained controls on an unpracticed previously validated bile duct cannulation task and scoring system and to determine whether random training schedules conferred any relative advantage. METHODS: 44 trainees with no laparoscopic experience were recruited to participate. 35 were randomized to practice the FLS tasks using either a blocked or random training schedule. Nine were randomized to no additional training (controls). Participant performance was measured throughout training to monitor skills acquisition and were then tested on an unpracticed bile duct cannulation simulation task 4 to 6 weeks later. Outcomes included previously validated FLS scores and hand-motion analyses. RESULTS: All 44 participants completed the study. Trained individuals in both groups showed significant improvements in all FLS tasks after training. There were no differences between groups in performance on the cannulation task median scores (Blocked: 89.8 [IQR:37.6]; Random: 83.2 [32.3]; Control: 83.6 [19.1]; p = 0.955), number of hand motions (Blocked: 42.5 [IQR:130.3]; Random: 75.3 [111.3]; Control: 63.0 [71.8]; p = 0.912), or distance traveled by participants hands (Blocked: 2.0 m [IQR:5.8]; Random: 3.8 [8.9]; Control: 2.6 [2.5]; p = 0.816). Cannulation task performance had no correlation with total FLS performance, R2 linear = 0.014, p = 0.445. CONCLUSIONS: Skills acquired from conventional FLS tasks did not effectively transfer to a laparoscopic bile duct cannulation task. Neither blocked nor random practice schedules conferred a relative advantage. These findings provide evidence that cannulation is a distinct skill from what is taught and assessed in FLS.
Authors: Jeffrey H Peters; Gerald M Fried; Lee L Swanstrom; Nathaniel J Soper; Lelan F Sillin; Bruce Schirmer; Kaaren Hoffman Journal: Surgery Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman; Melina C Vassiliou; Shannon A Fraser; Donna Stanbridge; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Christopher G Andrew Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A L McCluney; M C Vassiliou; P A Kaneva; J Cao; D D Stanbridge; L S Feldman; G M Fried Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.584