Department of Gynaecology, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Lancaster, UK.
Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
BMJ Open. 2023 Nov 10;13(11):e075113. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075113.
Training programmes for obstetrics and gynaecology (O&G) and general surgery (GS) vary significantly, but both require proficiency in laparoscopic skills. We sought to determine performance in each specialty.
Prospective, observational study.
Health Education England North-West, UK.
47 surgical trainees (24 O&G and 23 GS) were subdivided into four groups: 11 junior O&G, 13 senior O&G, 11 junior GS and 12 senior GS trainees.
Trainees were tested on four simulated laparoscopic tasks: laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN), hand-eye coordination (HEC), bimanual coordination (BMC) and suturing with intracorporeal knot tying (suturing).
O&G trainees completed LCN (p<0.001), HEC (p<0.001) and BMC (p<0.001) significantly slower than GS trainees. Furthermore, O&G found fewer number of targets in LCN (p=0.001) and dropped a greater number of pins than the GS trainees in BMC (p=0.04). In all three tasks, there were significant differences between O&G and GS trainees but no difference between the junior and senior groups within each specialty. Performance in suturing also varied by specialty; senior O&G trainees scored significantly lower than senior GS trainees (O&G 11.4±4.4 vs GS 16.8±2.1, p=0.03). Whilst suturing scores improved with seniority among O&G trainees, there was no difference between the junior and senior GS trainees (senior O&G 11.4±4.4 vs junior O&G 3.6±2.1, p=0.004).
GS trainees performed better than O&G trainees in core laparoscopic skills, and the structure of O&G training may require modification.
ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05116332).
妇产科(O&G)和普通外科(GS)的培训项目差异很大,但两者都需要熟练掌握腹腔镜技能。我们旨在确定每个专业的表现。
前瞻性、观察性研究。
英国英格兰西北部卫生教育署。
47 名外科受训者(24 名 O&G 和 23 名 GS)分为四组:11 名初级 O&G、13 名高级 O&G、11 名初级 GS 和 12 名高级 GS 受训者。
对受训者进行四项模拟腹腔镜任务的测试:腹腔镜摄像导航(LCN)、手眼协调(HEC)、双手协调(BMC)和腔内打结缝合(缝合)。
O&G 受训者在 LCN(p<0.001)、HEC(p<0.001)和 BMC(p<0.001)方面完成速度明显慢于 GS 受训者。此外,O&G 在 LCN 中找到的目标数量较少(p=0.001),并且在 BMC 中掉落的别针数量多于 GS 受训者(p=0.04)。在所有三个任务中,O&G 和 GS 受训者之间存在显著差异,但每个专业内的初级和高级组之间没有差异。缝合表现也因专业而异;高级 O&G 受训者的得分明显低于高级 GS 受训者(O&G 11.4±4.4 与 GS 16.8±2.1,p=0.03)。虽然 O&G 受训者的缝合评分随资历的增加而提高,但初级和高级 GS 受训者之间没有差异(高级 O&G 11.4±4.4 与初级 O&G 3.6±2.1,p=0.004)。
GS 受训者在核心腹腔镜技能方面的表现优于 O&G 受训者,O&G 培训的结构可能需要修改。
ClinicalTrials.gov 注册(NCT05116332)。