Anishan Vamadevan1, Lars Konge2,3, Morten Stadeager2,4, Flemming Bjerrum2,5. 1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Centre for HR and Education, The Capital Region, Copenhagen, Denmark. anishan.vamadevan@regionh.dk. 2. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Centre for HR and Education, The Capital Region, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Surgery, Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark. 5. Department of Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, Køge, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy requires specific psychomotor skills and can be challenging to learn. Most proficiency-based laparoscopic training programs have used non-haptic virtual reality simulators; however, haptic simulators can provide the tactile sensations that the surgeon would experience in the operating room. The objective was to investigate the effect of adding haptic simulators to a proficiency-based laparoscopy training program. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was designed where residents (n = 36) were randomized to proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training using haptic or non-haptic simulators. Subsequently, participants from the haptic group completed a follow-up test, where they had to reach proficiency again using the non-haptic simulator. Participants from the non-haptic group returned to train until reaching proficiency again using the non-haptic simulator. RESULTS: Mean completion times during the intervention were 120 min (SD 38.7 min) and 183 min (SD 66.3 min) for the haptic group and the non-haptic group, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean times to proficiency during the follow-up test were 107 min (SD 41.0 min) and 58 min (SD 23.7 min) for the haptic and the non-haptic group, respectively (p < 0.001). The haptic group was not faster to reach proficiency in the follow-up test than during the intervention (p = 0.22). In contrast, the non-haptic group reached the required proficiency level significantly faster in the follow-up test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Haptic virtual reality simulators reduce the time to reach proficiency compared to non-haptic simulators. However, the acquired skills are not transferable to the conventional non-haptic setting.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy requires specific psychomotor skills and can be challenging to learn. Most proficiency-based laparoscopic training programs have used non-haptic virtual reality simulators; however, haptic simulators can provide the tactile sensations that the surgeon would experience in the operating room. The objective was to investigate the effect of adding haptic simulators to a proficiency-based laparoscopy training program. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was designed where residents (n = 36) were randomized to proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training using haptic or non-haptic simulators. Subsequently, participants from the haptic group completed a follow-up test, where they had to reach proficiency again using the non-haptic simulator. Participants from the non-haptic group returned to train until reaching proficiency again using the non-haptic simulator. RESULTS: Mean completion times during the intervention were 120 min (SD 38.7 min) and 183 min (SD 66.3 min) for the haptic group and the non-haptic group, respectively (p = 0.001). The mean times to proficiency during the follow-up test were 107 min (SD 41.0 min) and 58 min (SD 23.7 min) for the haptic and the non-haptic group, respectively (p < 0.001). The haptic group was not faster to reach proficiency in the follow-up test than during the intervention (p = 0.22). In contrast, the non-haptic group reached the required proficiency level significantly faster in the follow-up test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Haptic virtual reality simulators reduce the time to reach proficiency compared to non-haptic simulators. However, the acquired skills are not transferable to the conventional non-haptic setting.
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: 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: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Christian R Larsen; Jette L Soerensen; Teodor P Grantcharov; Torur Dalsgaard; Lars Schouenborg; Christian Ottosen; Torben V Schroeder; Bent S Ottesen Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-05-14