Yiasemidou Marina, de Siqueira Jonathan, Tomlinson James, Glassman Daniel, Stock Simon, Gough Michael
School of Surgery, Health Education Yorkshire and the Humber, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
School of Surgery, Health Education Yorkshire and the Humber, Leeds, UK.
J Surg Res. 2017 Jun 1;213:69-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.02.038. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
Practice on virtual reality simulators (VRSs) has been shown to improve surgical performance. However, VRSs are expensive and usually housed in surgical skills centers that may be inaccessible at times convenient for surgical trainees to practice. Conversely, box trainers (BT) are inexpensive and can be used anywhere at anytime. This study assesses "take-home" BTs as an alternative to VRS.
After baseline assessments (two simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomies, one on a VRS and one on a BT), 25 surgical trainees were randomized to two groups. Trainees were asked to practice three basic laparoscopic tasks for 6 wk (BT group using a "take-home" box trainer; VR group using VRS in clinical skills centers). After the practice period, all performed two laparoscopic cholecystectomy, one on a VRS and one on a BT; (i.e., posttraining assessment). VRS provided metrics (total time [TT], number of movements instrument tip path length), and expert video assessment of cholecystectomy in a BT (Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills [GOALS] score) were recorded. Performance during pretraining and posttraining assessment was compared.
The BT group showed a significant improvement for all VRS metrics (P = 0.008) and the efficiency category of GOALS score (P = 0.03). Only TT improved in the VRS group, and none of the GOALS categories demonstrated a statistically significant improvement after training. Finally, the improvement in VRS metrics in the BT group was significantly greater than in the VR group (TT P = 0.005, number of movements P = 0.042, path length P = 0.031), although there were no differences in the GOALS scores between the groups.
This study suggests that a basic "take-home" BT is a suitable alternative to VRS.
虚拟现实模拟器(VRS)训练已被证明可提高手术操作水平。然而,VRS价格昂贵,通常放置在手术技能中心,手术学员可能无法在方便练习的时间使用。相反,箱式训练器(BT)价格低廉,可随时随地使用。本研究评估“带回家”的BT作为VRS的替代方案。
在进行基线评估(两次模拟腹腔镜胆囊切除术,一次在VRS上进行,一次在BT上进行)后,25名手术学员被随机分为两组。要求学员进行为期6周的三项基本腹腔镜任务练习(BT组使用“带回家”的箱式训练器;VR组在临床技能中心使用VRS)。练习期结束后,所有人进行两次腹腔镜胆囊切除术,一次在VRS上进行,一次在BT上进行(即训练后评估)。记录VRS提供的指标(总时间[TT]、动作次数、器械尖端路径长度)以及BT上胆囊切除术的专家视频评估(腹腔镜技能整体操作评估[GOALS]评分)。比较训练前和训练后评估期间的表现。
BT组在所有VRS指标上均有显著改善(P = 0.008),且GOALS评分的效率类别也有改善(P = 0.03)。VRS组仅TT有所改善,训练后GOALS各类别均未显示出统计学上的显著改善。最后,BT组VRS指标的改善显著大于VR组(TT P = 0.005,动作次数P = 0.042,路径长度P = 0.031),尽管两组之间的GOALS评分没有差异。
本研究表明,基本的“带回家”BT是VRS的合适替代方案。