Title
Porcine cadaver organ or virtual-reality simulation training for laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a randomized, controlled trial Porcine cadaver organ or virtual-reality simulation training for laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a randomized, controlled trial
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
Philadelphia, Pa ,
Subject
Educational sciences
Human medicine
Source (journal)
Journal of surgical education. - Philadelphia, Pa
Volume/pages
72(2015) :3 , p. 483-490
ISSN
1931-7204
ISI
000353311400017
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As conventional laparoscopic procedural training requires live animals or cadaver organs, virtual simulation seems an attractive alternative. Therefore, we compared the transfer of training for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy from porcine cadaver organs vs virtual simulation to surgery in a live animal model in a prospective randomized trial. DESIGN: After completing an intensive training in basic laparoscopic skills, 3 groups of 10 participants proceeded with no additional training (control group), 5 hours of cholecystectomy training on cadaver organs (= organ training) or proficiency-based cholecystectomy training on the LapMentor (= virtual-reality training). Participants were evaluated on time and quality during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on a live anaesthetized pig at baseline, 1 week (= post) and 4 months (= retention) after training. SETTING: All research was performed in the Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 30 volunteering medical students without prior experience in laparoscopy or minimally invasive surgery from the University of Leuven (Belgium). RESULTS: The organ training group performed the procedure significantly faster than the virtual trainer and borderline significantly faster than control group at posttesting. Only 1 of 3 expert raters suggested significantly better quality of performance of the organ training group compared with both the other groups at posttesting (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups at retention testing. The virtual trainer group did not outperform the control group at any time. CONCLUSIONS: For trainees who are proficient in basic laparoscopic skills, the long-term advantnge of additional procedural training, especially on a virtual but also on the conventional organ training model, remains to be proven. (C) 2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E-info
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000353311400017&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000353311400017&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/iruaauth/22a0ad/132499.pdf
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000353311400017&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Handle