Freyre-Santiago JM, Pedraza-González LA, López-Jurado JC, Figueroa-Gómez Crespo MP, García-Villaseñor A

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 735-746
PDF size: 246.70 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the differences in the outcomes of the exercises of the basic motor skills module of the Simbionix LAP Mentor simulator between a group of gynecology residents and another group of already graduated specialists.
Materials and Methods: Observational, prospective, longitudinal and comparative study carried out from December 2019 to January 2020 at the Hospital Español de México. Gynecology residents and specialists in the same branch with diverse experience in laparoscopic surgery were selected. The exercises of the basic motor skills module of a virtual reality system were evaluated with a high-fidelity simulation training program. The Student's t test was applied for variables with normal distribution and the Mann-Whitney U test for variables that did not meet the normality criterion.
Results: Thirty-one participants were included: the specialist group (n = 19) and the resident group (n = 12). Significant differences between residents and specialists were found in exercise 3-eye-hand coordination (4.45 sec, 95%CI: 0.167-8.73; p ‹ 0.05) and in exercise 5-pulling and stapling of leaking hoses (29.58 sec, 95%CI: -42.99 -14.00; p ‹ 0.001), in favor of the specialist group. In exercise 7-cutting and exercise 8-fulguration there were no significant differences between one group and the other.
Conclusions: The Simbionix LAP Mentor virtual reality simulator detects differences between groups of obstetrician-gynecologists with different experience in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery and residents of the specialty.

REFERENCES

1. Sadideen H, Kneebone R. Practical skills teaching incontemporary surgical education: How can educationaltheory be applied to promote effective learning? Am JSurg 2012; 204 (3): 396-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.12.020

2. Moulder JK, Louie M, Toubia T, Schiff LD, Siedhoff MT. Therole of simulation and warm-up in minimally invasive gynecologicsurgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29 (4):212-7. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000368.

3. Papanikolaou IG, Haidopoulos D, Paschopoulos M, ChatzipapasI, Loutradis D, Vlahos NF. Changing the way we trainsurgeons in the 21th century: A narrative comparative reviewfocused on box trainers and virtual reality simulators.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 235: 13-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.01.016

4. Simbionix USA Corporation. Surgical science simbionixsimulators [Internet]. Corner of Golan and Hanegev St.Airport City (IL). Simbionix USA Corporation. (Citado yactualizado 5 de Julio de 2022). https://simbionix.com/simulators/lap-mentor/library-of-modules/basic-skills/.

5. McDougall EM, Corica FA, Boker JR, Sala LG, Stoliar G,Borin JF, et al. Construct validity testing of a laparoscopicsurgical simulator. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 202 (5): 779-87.doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.01.004

6. Yamaguchi S, Konishi K, Yasunaga T, Yoshida D, Kinjo N,Kobayashi K, et al. Construct validity for eye-hand coordinationskill on a virtual reality laparoscopic surgical simulator.Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2007; 21 (12): 2253-57. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9362-1

7. Zhang A, Hünerbein M, Dai Y, Schlag PM, Beller S. Constructvalidity testing of a laparoscopic surgery simulator (LapMentor®): Evaluation of surgical skill with a virtual laparoscopictraining simulator. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech2008; 22 (6): 1440-44. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9625-x

8. Andreatta PB, Woodrum DT, Gauger PG, Minter RM.LapMentor metrics possess limited construct validity.Simul Healthc 2008; 3 (1): 16-25. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e31816366b9

9. Paquette J, Lemyre M, Vachon-Marceau C, Bujold E, Maheux-Lacroix S. Virtual laparoscopy simulation: a promisingpedagogic tool in gynecology. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg2017; 21 (3): 1-5. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2017.00048

10. Elessawy M, Wewer A, Guenther V, Heilmann T, Eckmann-Scholz C, Schem C, et al. Validation of psychomotor tasks bySimbionix LAP Mentor simulator and identifying the targetgroup. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2017; 26 (5):262-68. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2017.1303516

11. Munro MG. Surgical Simulation: Where Have We ComeFrom? Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going? J MinimInvasive Gynecol 2012; 19 (3): 272-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.01.012

12. Shore EM, Grantcharov TP, Husslein H, Shirreff L, Dedy NJ,McDermott CD, et al. Validating a standardized laparoscopycurriculum for gynecology residents: a randomizedcontrolled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (2): 204.e1-204.e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.037

13. Campo R, Wattiez A, Tanos V, Di-Spiezio A, Grimbizis G,Wallwiener D, et al. Gynaecological endoscopic surgicaleducation and assessment. A diploma programme in gynaecologicalendoscopic surgery. Gynecol Surg 2016; 13(3): 133-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0957-1

14. Alkatout I, Dhanawat J, Ackermann J, Freytag D, Peters G,Maass N, et al. Video feedback and video modeling in teachinglaparoscopic surgery: a visionary concept from kiel.J Clin Med 2021; 10 (1): 163. doi: 10.3390/jcm10010163

15. Schmitt F, Mariani A, Eyssartier E, Granry JC, Podevin G.Learning laparoscopic skills: Observation or practice? JLaparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2018; 28 (1): 89-94. doi:10.1089/lap.2017.0254

16. Schmitt F, Mariani A, Eyssartier E, Granry JC, Podevin G.Skills improvement after observation or direct practice of asimulated laparoscopic intervention. J Gynecol Obstet HumReprod 2018; 47 (3): 101-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.12.004

17. Wohlrab K, Jelovsek JE, Myers D. Incorporating simulationinto gynecologic surgical training. Am J ObstetGynecol 2017; 217 (5): 522-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.017