A tale of two trainers: virtual reality versus a video trainer for acquisition of basic laparoscopic skills

Department of Surgery, Oestfold Hospital Trust, Oestfold Hospital Trust, N-1603 Fredrikstad, Norway.
American journal of surgery (Impact Factor: 2.41). 06/2010; 199(6):840-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.05.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study aimed to assess the transferability of basic laparoscopic skills between a virtual reality simulator (MIST-VR) and a video trainer box (D-Box).
Forty-six medical students were randomized into 2 groups, training on MIST-VR or D-Box. After training with one modality, a crossover assessment on the other was performed.
When tested on MIST-VR, the MIST-VR group showed significantly shorter time (90.3 seconds vs 188.6 seconds, P <.001), better economy of movements (4.40 vs 7.50, P <.001), and lower score (224.7 vs 527.0, P <.001). However, when assessed on the D-Box, there was no difference between the groups for time (402.0 seconds vs 325.6 seconds, P = .152), total hand movements (THC) (289 vs 262, P = .792), or total path length (TPL) (34.9 m vs 34.6 m, P = .388).
Both simulators provide significant improvement in performance. Our results indicate that skills learned on the MIST-VR are transferable to the D-Box, but the opposite cannot be demonstrated.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To study the place of simulation in the training curriculum of French urologists-in-training. An online questionnaire was sent to all residents and fellows members of the AFUF between February and May, 2013. Results are presented as the median (interquartile range). The answers of 125 urologists-in-training were computed (response rate 38%). They were residents in 90 cases (72%), and fellows in 35 cases (28%). Median age was 29 (27-30), male proportion 77%. All French academic urology departments were represented. Ninety of them (72%) had access to a pelvi-trainer and 66 (53%) to animal or cadaveric models, although they never used them or less than once a month in 83 and 97% of cases, respectively. Seventy-two (58%) had used a virtual-reality based simulator at least once and 38 (30%) had regular access to one, but without supervision in 64% of cases. Factors limiting simulation-based training were the lack of available simulators (70%), the lack of time (58%), the absence of incitement (34%) and supervision (20%). If these conditions were met, 86% of urologists-in-training would be ready to spend more than one hour a-week training on a simulator. This study revealed among the sample of respondents a limited use of simulation tools for skills aquisition. This was explained by a limited availability of these tools but also by an insufficient use of the tools when available.
    Progrès en Urologie 05/2014; 24(6):390-6. DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2013.10.013 · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopy training courses have been established in many centers worldwide to ensure adequate skill learning before performing operations on patients. Different training modalities and their combinations have been compared regarding training effects. Multimodality training combines different approaches for optimal training outcome. However, no standards currently exist for the number of trainees assigned per workplace. This is a monocentric, open, three-arm randomized controlled trial. The participants are laparoscopically-naive medical students from Heidelberg University. After a standardized introduction to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) with online learning modules, the participants perform a baseline test for basic skills and LC performance on a virtual reality (VR) trainer. A total of 100 students will be randomized into three study arms, in a 2:2:1 ratio. The intervention groups participate individually (Group 1) or in pairs (Group 2) in a standardized and structured multimodality training curriculum. Basic skills are trained on the box and VR trainers. Procedural skills and LC modules are trained on the VR trainer. The control group (Group C) does not receive training between tests. A post-test is performed to reassess basic skills and LC performance on the VR trainer. The performance of a cadaveric porcine LC is then measured as the primary outcome using standardized and validated ratings by blinded experts with the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. The Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgical skills score and the time taken for completion are used as secondary outcome measures as well as the improvement of skills and VR LC performance between baseline and post-test. Cognitive tests and questionnaires are used to identify individual factors that might exert influence on training outcome. This study aims to assess whether workplaces in laparoscopy training courses for beginners should be used by one trainee or two trainees simultaneously, by measuring the impact on operative performance and learning curves. Possible factors of influence, such as the role of observing the training partner, exchange of thoughts, active reflection, model learning, motivation, pauses, and sympathy will be explored in the data analysis. This study will help optimize the efficiency of laparoscopy training courses.Trial registration number: DRKS00004675.
    Trials 04/2014; 15(1):137. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-15-137 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Since simulators offer important advantages, they are increasingly used in medical education and medical skills training that require physical actions. A wide variety of simulators have become commercially available. It is of high importance that evidence is provided that training on these simulators can actually improve clinical performance on live patients. Therefore, the aim of this review is to determine the availability of different types of simulators and the evidence of their validation, to offer insight regarding which simulators are suitable to use in the clinical setting as a training modality. Summary Four hundred and thirty-three commercially available simulators were found, from which 405 (94%) were physical models. One hundred and thirty validation studies evaluated 35 (8%) commercially available medical simulators for levels of validity ranging from face to predictive validity. Solely simulators that are used for surgical skills training were validated for the highest validity level (predictive validity). Twenty-four (37%) simulators that give objective feedback had been validated. Studies that tested more powerful levels of validity (concurrent and predictive validity) were methodologically stronger than studies that tested more elementary levels of validity (face, content, and construct validity). Conclusion Ninety-three point five percent of the commercially available simulators are not known to be tested for validity. Although the importance of (a high level of) validation depends on the difficulty level of skills training and possible consequences when skills are insufficient, it is advisable for medical professionals, trainees, medical educators, and companies who manufacture medical simulators to critically judge the available medical simulators for proper validation. This way adequate, safe, and affordable medical psychomotor skills training can be achieved.
    10/2014; 5:385-95. DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S63435


Available from
Nov 19, 2014