medigraphic.com

2006, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Cir Cir 2006; 74 (4)

Biosimulator training and its impact on skill in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Flores-Gama F, Ramírez-Solís E, Lara-Ontiveros J, Aragón-Inclán J, Carmona-Moreno E, Soto-Sánchez B

Language: Spanish
References: 46
Page: 263-268
PDF size: 110.77 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: We undertook this study to determinate the educational impact of training in an inanimate biosimulator in terms of effectivity, time and complications in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Methods: We used a comparative, experimental cohort, prospective and longitudinal. Three first-postgraduate-year residents and one pre-grade internship physician were trained and assessed in basic laparoscopic skills using a biosimulator (fiberglass “dummy” where animal organs are introduced ex-vivo). The participants acted as their own control, performing a procedure to determine surgical time, complications and effectivity. Later they observed a short video demonstrating the suitable development of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The video defined the specific deviations from the ideal cholecystectomy, which were considered as errors. Every procedure was videotaped, beginning with the careful dissection of cystic structures and clipping them, continuing with the dissection of the gallbladder from the liver with the standardized method. Each participant performed ten procedures.
Results: There were no differences in baseline assessment of basic skills. All participants completed all proposed procedures. Surgical time was 61% faster at the end of the study (p ‹0.001), as well as demonstrating a lower rate of complications of 0.67% (p ‹0.009).
Conclusions: Skills training in endoscopic surgery by means of an inanimate biosimulator is superior to traditional training because it decreases surgical time and surgical complications without ethical considerations and the effect of a learning curve in the operating room.


REFERENCES

  1. 1. Gallagher A, Ritter E, Champion H. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg 2005;241:364-372.

  2. 2. Aggarwal R, Moorthy K. Laparoscopic skills training and assessment. Br J Surg 2004;91:1549-1558.

  3. 3. Francis N, Hanna G, Cuschieri A. The performance of master surgeons on the Advanced Dundee Endoscopic Psychomotor Tester: contrast validity study. Arch Surg 2002;137:841-844.

  4. 4. Gallagher AG, Satava RM. Virtual reality as a metric for the assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills. Learning curves and reliability measures. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1746-1752.

  5. 5. Smith CD, Farrell TM, McNatt SS. Assessing laparoscopic manipu-

  6. lative skills. Am J Surg 2001;181:547–550.

  7. 6. Van Rij A, McDonald JR, Pettigrew RA. Cusum as an aid to early assessment of the surgical trainee. Br J Surg 1995;82:1500-1503.

  8. 7. Rosser J, Rosser L, Savalgi R. Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery. Arch Surg 1997;132:200-204.

  9. 8. Krummel T. Surgical simulation and virtual reality: the coming revolution. Ann Surg 1998;228:635-637.

  10. 9. Grunwald T, Krummel T. Advanced technologies in plastic surgery: how new innovations can improve our training and practice. Plastic Reconstruct Surg 2004;114:1556-1567.

  11. 10. Ko C, Whang E, Karamanoukian R. What is the best method of surgical training? A report of America’s leading senior surgeons. Arch Surg 1998;133:900-905.

  12. 11. Fried G, Feldman L, Vassiliou M. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2004;240:518-528.

  13. 12. Pandey V, Liapis C, Bergqvist D. The European Board of Surgery qualification in vascular surgery: factors affecting the technical skill of examination candidates. Br J Surg 2004;91:1082.

  14. 13. Kohls-Gatzoulis J, Regehr G, Hutchison C. Teaching cognitive skills improves learning in surgical skills courses: a blinded, prospective, randomized study. Can J Surg 2004;47:277-283.

  15. 14. Wong K, Stewart F. Competency-based training of basic surgical trainees using human cadavers. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:639-642.

  16. 15. Grober E, Hamstra S, Wanzel K. Laboratory based training in urological microsurgery with bench model simulators: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the durability of technical skill. J Urol 2004;172:378-381.

  17. 16. Special Section: Surgical Residency Redesign. Residency training in surgery in the 21st century: a new paradigm. Surgery 2004;136.

  18. 17. Mackay S, Datta V, Chang A. Multiple Objective Measures of Skill (MOMS): a new approach to the assessment of technical ability in surgical trainees. Ann Surg 2003;238:291-300.

  19. 18. Pandey V, Moorthy K, Munz Y. Procedural rating scales increase objectivity in surgical assessment. Br J Surg 2003;90:14-15.

  20. 19. Neal S, Gallagher A, Sanziana R. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance. Ann Surg 2002;236:458-464.

  21. 20. Moore M, Bennett C. The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystec-

  22. tomy. Am J Surg 1995;170:55-59.

  23. 21. http://www.asge.org

  24. 22. Hinojosa A, Salinas E, Piza R. Entrenamiento tutelar intensivo en colecistectomía laparoscópica en pacientes. Cir Gen 2000;22:334-336.

  25. 23. Veja G, Preciado C, Becerril R. Colecistectomía laparoscópica con tres puertos. Una modificación al abordaje. Asoc Mex Cir Endos 2003;4:134-140.

  26. 24. Nachón F, Díaz J, Martín G. Colecistectomía laparoscópica. Expe-

  27. riencia de cinco años en el Centro de Especialidades de Veracruz. Cir Ciruj 2001;69:22-25.

  28. 25. Jowell P, Baillie J, Branch S. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence: a prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Surg 1996;125:983-989.

  29. 26. Hanna G, Frank T, Cuschieri A. Objetive assessment of endoscopic knot quality. Am J Surg 1997;174:410-413.

  30. 27. Darzi A, Smith S, Taffinder N. Assessing operative skill. BMJ 1999;

  31. 318:887-888.

  32. 28. Ragunath K, Thomas L, Cheung W. Objetive evaluation of ERCP procedures: a simple grading scale for evaluating technical difficulty. Postgrad Med J 2003;79:467-470.

  33. 29. http://www.simulab.com/LaparoscopicSurgery.html

  34. 30. http://www.eetc.it/

  35. 31. http://www.olympus.co.jp/

  36. 32. http://www.simbionix.com/index.html

  37. 33. http://www.immersion.com/medical/

  38. 34. Dent T. Training, credentialing, and granting of clinical privileges for laparoscopic general surgery. Am J Surg 1991;161:399-403.

  39. 35. Issenberg B, McGaghie W, Hart I. Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA 1999;282:861-866.

  40. 36. Grober E, Hamstra S, Wanzel K. The educational impact of bench model fidelity on acquisition of technical skill. Ann Surg 2004;

  41. 240:374-381.

  42. 37. Figert P, Park A, Witzke D. Transfer of training in acquiring laparoscopic skill. J Am Coll Surg 2001;193:533-537.

  43. 38. Wington R. Measuring procedural skills. Ann Intern Med 1996;

  44. 125:1003-1004.

  45. 39. Cass O, Freeman M, Peine C. Objetive evaluation of endoscopy skills during training. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:40-44.

  46. 40. Baillie J, Ravich W. On endoscopic training and procedural competence. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:73-74.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com