Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Marburg, University of Gießen and Marburg, Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg, Germany.
Center of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University Hospital of Marburg, University of Gießen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):4118-4125. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5460-x. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
This prospective study analyzed the effect of different time schedules in training on the main performance outcomes: overall score, time to complete, and economy of motion.
The study was performed on the da Vinci Skills Simulator from December 2014 to April 2016. Forty robotic novices were randomized into two groups of 20 participants, which trained in the same three exercises but with different intervals between their training sessions. Each group performed training in Peg Board 1 in their first week, Match Board 2 in their second week, and Ring and Rail 2 in their third week. On their last day, Needle Targeting and Energy Dissection 2, for which no previous training had been received, were performed. Regarding the different training intervals, group 1 trained each exercise six times in a row once a week. Group 2 performed their training once a day for 5 days. Technical performance parameters were recorded by the Mimics simulator software for further analysis. In addition, the participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning the robotics training.
Group 2 performed significantly better compared to group 1 in the main metrics in the more advanced exercises. For the easier exercises, the training frequency did not lead to significant differences in performance outcome. A significant skills gain was seen between the first and last training sessions for all exercises in both groups.
Performance in the final exercise NT was significantly better in group 2 than group 1. Regarding ED 2, no difference was found between the two groups. As the training of group 2 led to significantly better outcomes, we suggest that, especially for advanced exercises, it seems to be more favorable to perform training every day for a short period than to train once a week six times in a row.
本前瞻性研究分析了不同培训时间表对主要绩效结果的影响：总评分、完成时间和运动经济性。
本研究于 2014 年 12 月至 2016 年 4 月在达芬奇技能模拟器上进行。40 名机器人新手随机分为两组，每组 20 名参与者，他们在相同的三项练习中进行培训，但培训课程之间的间隔不同。每组在第一周进行 Peg Board 1 训练，第二周进行 Match Board 2 训练，第三周进行 Ring and Rail 2 训练。在最后一天，进行之前未接受过培训的 Needle Targeting 和 Energy Dissection 2 练习。关于不同的培训间隔，第 1 组每周连续训练 6 次，第 2 组每天训练一次，共 5 天。通过 Mimics 模拟器软件记录技术性能参数进行进一步分析。此外，参与者被要求填写一份有关机器人培训的问卷。
第 2 组在更高级的练习中在主要指标上的表现明显优于第 1 组。对于较简单的练习，训练频率并未导致表现结果出现显著差异。在两组中，所有练习的第一次和最后一次训练之间都观察到了明显的技能提高。
第 2 组在最终练习 NT 中的表现明显优于第 1 组。关于 ED 2，两组之间没有差异。由于第 2 组的培训导致了明显更好的结果，我们建议，特别是对于高级练习，每天进行短时间的培训似乎比每周连续进行 6 次培训更有利。
