Jackson Hope T, Zettervall Sara L, Teitelbaum Ezra N, Holzner Matt, Weissler Jason, Amdur Richard L, Vaziri Khashayar
Department of Surgery, George Washington University, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 6B, Washington, DC, 20037, USA,
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6):1297-302. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3802-5. Epub 2014 Sep 24.
The accuracy of surgeons, and surgeons-in-training performing laparoscopic intestinal measurements is unknown. We evaluated the accuracy and precision of laparoscopic length measurements using a box-trainer model with and without the aid of a measuring tool.
Surgical attendings, residents, and medical students were studied. A 500 cm length of rope was placed within a laparoscopic box trainer. Subjects completed two length measurements (LM). Participants measured 150 cm of rope for LM #1 and repeated the task using a 10-cm suture as a reference for LM #2. Measurement accuracy was tested by comparing mean LM between training level groups using an independent t test. Measurement precision was tested by comparing the mean deviation of LM from 150 cm.
40 attendings, 40 residents, and 50 medical students were studied. In LM #1, there were no differences in mean length accuracy measured between training level groups. Residents significantly underestimated the true 150 cm length (p < 0.05). When LM #1 and LM #2 were compared, attending accuracy did not change but precision increased significantly (p < 0.01). Resident precision also significantly increased with the measuring tool (p < 0.001) and trended toward improved accuracy (p = 0.08). Student accuracy did not change, but a similar significant increase in precision was observed with the measurement tool (p = 0.001). Attendings performed both measurements faster than residents and students (p < 0.05). Residents performed faster than the students for both measurements (p < 0.05). Time for task completion significantly increased in medical students with the use of the measurement tool (p = 0.026).
These data suggest that use of a measurement tool in laparoscopic length measurement will yield better precision with no effect on operative time or procedural flow in more experienced operators. Standardization of methods of use and optimal training techniques remains to be determined.
外科医生及接受培训的外科医生进行腹腔镜肠道测量的准确性尚不清楚。我们使用带和不带测量工具辅助的箱式训练模型评估了腹腔镜长度测量的准确性和精确性。
对手术主治医师、住院医师和医学生进行了研究。将一根500厘米长的绳子放置在腹腔镜箱式训练器内。受试者完成两次长度测量(LM)。参与者在LM#1中测量150厘米长的绳子,并在LM#2中使用一根10厘米长的缝线作为参考重复该任务。通过使用独立t检验比较训练水平组之间的平均LM来测试测量准确性。通过比较LM与150厘米的平均偏差来测试测量精确性。
共研究了40名主治医师、40名住院医师和50名医学生。在LM#1中,训练水平组之间测量的平均长度准确性没有差异。住院医师显著低估了真正的150厘米长度(p<0.05)。当比较LM#1和LM#2时,主治医师的准确性没有变化,但精确性显著提高(p<0.01)。使用测量工具时,住院医师的精确性也显著提高(p<0.001),且准确性有提高的趋势(p=0.08)。医学生的准确性没有变化,但使用测量工具时观察到精确性有类似的显著提高(p=0.001)。主治医师完成两项测量的速度均快于住院医师和医学生(p<0.05)。住院医师完成两项测量的速度均快于医学生(p<0.05)。医学生使用测量工具时任务完成时间显著增加(p=0.026)。
这些数据表明,在腹腔镜长度测量中使用测量工具将产生更高的精确性,且对经验更丰富的操作者的手术时间或操作流程没有影响。使用方法的标准化和最佳训练技术仍有待确定。