Eco-friendly laparoscopic home trainer. Simul Healthc. 2011;6:176-179. [PMID: 21646985 DOI: 10.1097/sih.0b013e318208549b]

Take-Home Laparoscopy Simulators in Pediatric Surgery: Is More Expensive Better?

Background: To increase complex minimally invasive skills (MIS), frequent training outside the clinical setting is of uttermost importance. This study compares two low-cost pediatric MIS simulators, which can easily be used preclinically. Materials and Methods: The LaparoscopyBoxx is a portable simulator without a tracking system, with costs ranging from €90 to €315. The EoSim simulator has a built-in camera and tracking system and costs range from €780 to €1800. During several pediatric surgical conferences and workshops (January 2017-December 2018), participants were asked to use both simulators. Afterward, they completed a questionnaire regarding their opinion on realism and didactic value, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 50 participants (24 experts and 25 target group, one unknown) evaluated one or both simulators. Both simulators scored well on the questionnaire. The LaparoscopyBoxx scored significantly better regarding the "on screen representation of the instrument actions" (mean 4.2 versus 3.5, P = .001), "training tool for pediatric surgery" (mean 4.4 versus 3.9, P = .005), and "appealing take-home simulator" (mean 4.6 versus 4.0, P = .002). Conclusion: The simulators tested in this study were both regarded an appealing take-home simulator. The LaparoscopyBoxx scored significantly better than the EoSim, even though this is a low budget simulator without tracking capabilities.

Effects of Varied Surgical Simulation Training Schedules on Motor-Skill Acquisition

There have been many studies to evaluate the effect of training schedules on retention; however, these usually compare only 2 drastically different schedules, massed and distributed, and they have tended to look at declarative knowledge tasks. This study examined learning on a laparoscopic surgery simulator using a set of procedural or perceptual-motor tasks with some declarative elements. The study used distributed, massed, and 2 hybrid-training schedules that are neither distributed nor massed. To evaluate the training schedules, 23 participants with no previous laparoscopic experience were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 training schedules. They performed 3 laparoscopic training tasks in eight 30-minute learning sessions. We compared how task time decreased with each schedule in a between-participants design. We found participants in all groups demonstrated a decrease in task completion time as the number of training sessions increased; however, there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ improvement on task completion time between the 4 different training schedule groups, which suggested that time on task is more important for learning these tasks than the training schedule.

Simulation-based training in laparoscopic urology - Pros and cons

Surgery is traditionally taught by using Halsteadian principle, which includes “see one, do one, teach one”. This principle relies on sheer volume of surgical exposure rather than a specific course structure. Simulation in minimally invasive surgery allows the learner to practice new motor skills in a safe and stress free environment outside the operating room, thereby decreasing the learning curve.

A non-structured exhaustive MEDLINE search was done using MeSH words: “Simulation, Urological Training, Training Models, Laparoscopy Urology, Laparoscopic Skill, Endotrainer, Surgical Simulators, Simulator Validation”. The “ Pros and Cons of simulation based training in laparoscopic urology” were studied.

Results were discussed along the following lines : 1. How does skill acquisition occur? 2. Factors affecting simulator-based training. 3. Description of types of simulators and models. 4. Validating a simulator. 5. Task analysis after training on a simulator. 6. How effectively does simulation based training, translate into improved surgical performance in real time?

Pros: Simulators have the ability to teach a novice basic psychomotor skills. Supervision and feedback enhance learning in a simulation-based training. They are supplements to and not a substitution for traditional method of teaching. These models can be used as a part of most of the surgical training curriculum.

Cons: Cost and availability are the key issues. The cost will determine the availability of the simulators at a center and the availability in turn would determine whether a trainee will get the opportunity to use the simulator. Also, teacher training is an important aspect which would help teachers to understand the importance of simulation in student training. The domains in which it would improve and the extent to which simulation will improve surgical skills is dependent on various factors. Most simulators cannot train a surgeon to deal with anatomical and physiological variations. At present, it is not possible to re-validate all the surgeons in terms of their surgical skills, using simulators.

Cost Comparison of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Training Completed With Standard Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Equipment versus Low-Cost Equipment

OBJECTIVE

Training for the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) skills test can be expensive. Previous work demonstrated that training on an ergonomically different, low-cost platform does not affect FLS skills test outcomes. This study compares the average training cost with standard FLS equipment and medical-grade consumables versus training on a lower cost platform with non-medical-grade consumables.

DESIGN

Subjects were prospectively randomized to either the standard FLS training platform (n = 19) with medical-grade consumables (S-FLS), or the low-cost platform (n = 20) with training-grade products (LC-FLS). Both groups trained to proficiency using previously established mastery learning standards on the 5 FLS tasks. The fixed and consumable cost differences were compared.

SETTING

Training occurred in a surgical simulation center.

PARTICIPANTS

Laparoscopic novice medical student and resident physician health care professionals who had not completed the national FLS proficiency curriculum and who had performed less than 10 laparoscopic cases.

RESULTS

The fixed cost of the platform was considerably higher in the S-FLS group (S-FLS, $3360; LC-FLS, $879), and the average consumable training cost was significantly higher for the S-FLS group (S-FLS, $1384.52; LC-FLS, $153.79; p < 0.001). The LC-FLS group had a statistically discernable cost reduction for each consumable (Gauze $9.24 vs. $0.39, p = 0.002; EndoLoop $540.00 vs. $40.60, p < 0.001; extracorporeal suture $216.45 vs. $25.20, p < 0.001; intracorporeal suture $618.83 vs. $87.60, p < 0.001). The annual fixed and consumable cost to train 5 residents is $10,282.60 in the S-FLS group versus $1647.95 in the LC-FLS group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the average cost to train a single trainee to proficiency using a lower fixed-cost platform and non-medical-grade equipment results in significant financial savings. A 5-resident program will save approximately $8500 annually. Residency programs should consider adopting this strategy to reduce the cost of FLS training.

Practice, training and safety of laparoscopic surgery in low and middle-income countries

Surgical management of diseases is recognised as a major unmet need in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Laparoscopic surgery has been present since the 1980s and offers the benefit of minimising the morbidity and potential mortality associated with laparotomies. Laparotomies are often carried out in LMICs for diagnosis and management, due to lack of radiological investigative and intervention options. The use of laparoscopy for diagnosis and treatment is globally variable, with high-income countries using laparoscopy routinely compared with LMICs. The specific advantages of minimally invasive surgery such as lower surgical site infections and earlier return to work are of great benefit for patients in LMICs, as time lost not working could result in a family not being able to sustain themselves. Laparoscopic surgery and training is not cheap. Cost is a major barrier to healthcare access for a significant population in LMICs. Therefore, cost is usually seen as a major barrier for laparoscopic surgery to be integrated into routine practice in LMICs. The aim of this review is to focus on the practice, training and safety of laparoscopic surgery in LMICs. In addition it highlights the barriers to progress in adopting laparoscopic surgery in LMICs and how to address them.

Outcomes of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) mastery training standards applied to an ergonomically different, lower cost platform

OBJECTIVE

Using previously established mastery learning standards, this study compares outcomes of training on standard FLS (FLS) equipment with training on an ergonomically different (ED-FLS), but more portable, lower cost platform.

METHODS

Subjects completed a pre-training FLS skills test on the standard platform and were then randomized to train on the FLS training platform (n = 20) or the ED-FLS platform (n = 19). A post-training FLS skills test was administered to both groups on the standard FLS platform.

RESULTS

Group performance on the pretest was similar. Fifty percent of FLS and 32 % of ED-FLS subjects completed the entire curriculum. 100 % of subjects completing the curriculum achieved passing scores on the post-training test. There was no statistically discernible difference in scores on the final FLS exam (FLS 93.4, ED-FLS 93.3, p = 0.98) or training sessions required to complete the curriculum (FLS 7.4, ED-FLS 9.8, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that when applying mastery learning theory to an ergonomically different platform, skill transfer occurs at a high level and prepares subjects to pass the standard FLS skills test.

A systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators

BACKGROUND

Opportunities for surgical skills practice using high-fidelity simulation in the workplace are limited due to cost, time and geographical constraints, and accessibility to junior trainees. An alternative is needed to practise laparoscopic skills at home. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of low-cost laparoscopic simulators.

METHOD

A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE/EMBASE was searched for articles between 1990 and 2014. We included articles describing portable and low-cost laparoscopic simulators that were ready-made or suitable for assembly; articles not in English, with inadequate descriptions of the simulator, and costs >£1500 were excluded. Validation, equipment needed, cost, and ease of assembly were examined.

RESULTS

Seventy-three unique simulators were identified (60 non-commercial, 13 commercial); 55 % (33) of non-commercial trainers were subject to at least one type of validation compared with 92 % (12) of commercial trainers. Commercial simulators had better face validation compared with non-commercial. The cost ranged from £3 to £216 for non-commercial and £60 to £1007 for commercial simulators. Key components of simulator construction were identified as abdominal cavity and wall, port site, light source, visualisation, and camera monitor. Laptop computers were prerequisite where direct vision was not used. Non-commercial models commonly utilised retail off-the-shelf components, which allowed reduction in costs and greater ease of construction.

CONCLUSION

The models described provide simple and affordable options for self-assembly, although a significant proportion have not been subject to any validation. Portable simulators may be the most equitable solution to allow regular basic skills practice (e.g. suturing, knot-tying) for junior surgical trainees.

Training Laparoscopic Skills at Home: Residents' Opinion of a New Portable Tablet Box Trainer

OBJECTIVE

To determine residents' opinion about a new portable box trainer, to see if they would be interested in using this for training at home, and to give an overview of the box trainers that could be used at home.

METHODS

An expert opinion study was performed among 27 gynecology residents to determine the value of the portable box trainer in training their laparoscopic skills and the value of using it at home. Their opinions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Gynecology residents very much appreciated the portable box trainer in its design, size, visualization, light source, ability to record, and instruments (all median 4). They felt that the portable box trainer would be effective in training laparoscopic skills in general; in training hand-eye coordination, 3D perception, and tying knots (all median 4); and especially in training basic skills (median 5). Almost all residents would use the portable box trainer if they had one at home (median 5). The literature supports the hypothesis that training laparoscopic skills at home using a box trainer may be effective in acquiring and maintaining laparoscopic skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Training laparoscopic skills at home using a portable box trainer may be of added value in the laparoscopic training of surgical residents. Residents feel positive about using the new portable box trainer that is presented and appreciate the possibility of training at home.

Face, content, and construct validity of a novel portable ergonomic simulator for basic laparoscopic skills

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic skills can be improved effectively through laparoscopic simulation. The purpose of this study was to verify the face and content validity of a new portable Ergonomic Laparoscopic Skills simulator (Ergo-Lap simulator) and assess the construct validity of the Ergo-Lap simulator in 4 basic skills tasks.

DESIGN

Four tasks were evaluated: 2 different translocation exercises (a basic bimanual exercise and a challenging single-handed exercise), an exercise involving tissue manipulation under tension, and a needle-handling exercise. Task performance was analyzed according to speed and accuracy. The participants rated the usability and didactic value of each task and the Ergo-Lap simulator along a 5-point Likert scale.

SETTING

Institutional academic medical center with its affiliated general surgery residency.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-six participants were allotted into 2 groups: a Novice group (n = 26, <10 clinical laparoscopic procedures) and an Experienced group (n = 20, >50 clinical laparoscopic procedures).

RESULTS

The Experienced group completed all tasks in less time than the Novice group did (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). The Experienced group also completed tasks 1, 2, and 4 with fewer errors than the Novice group did (p < 0.05). Of the Novice participants, 96% considered that the present Ergo-Lap simulator could encourage more frequent practice of laparoscopic skills. In addition, 92% would like to purchase this simulator. All of the experienced participants confirmed that the Ergo-Lap simulator was easy to use and useful for practicing basic laparoscopic skills in an ergonomic manner. Most (95%) of these respondents would recommend this simulator to other surgical trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

This Ergo-Lap simulator with multiple tasks was rated as a useful training tool that can distinguish between various levels of laparoscopic expertise. The Ergo-Lap simulator is also an inexpensive alternative, which surgical trainees could use to update their skills in the skills laboratory, at home, or in the office.

A systematic review on low-cost box models to achieve basic and advanced laparoscopic skills during modern surgical training

INTRODUCTION

Low-cost box models (BMs) are a valuable tool alternative to virtual-reality simulators. We aim to provide surgical trainees with a description of most common BMs and to present their validity to achieve basic and advanced laparoscopic skills.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was undertaken for all studies focusing on BMs, excluded were those presenting data on virtual-reality simulators only. Databases were screened up to December 2011.

RESULTS

Numerous studies focused on various BMs to improve generic tasks (ie, instrument navigation, coordination, and cutting). Only fewer articles described models specific for peculiar operations. All studies showed a significant improvement of basic laparoscopic skills after training with BMs. Furthermore, their low costs make them easily available to most surgical trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

BMs should be developed by all surgical trainees during their training. Fields for future improvement regard endoscopy and complex laparoscopic operations for which ad hoc BMs are not available.

Construction and validation of a low-cost laparoscopic simulator for surgical education

INTRODUCTION

To construct a trainer that would achieve the equivalent goals of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) trainer at an economical cost. A validation study comparing our homemade (HM) trainer vs the FLS trainer was performed. A literature search as well as a price comparison with other commercially available laparoscopic trainers is presented.

METHODS

The HM laparoscopic trainer was constructed using a prefabricated hard plastic frame with a vinyl plastic sheet affixed as the roof. A row of light-emitting diode lights and a charge-coupled device camera were mounted on the inside roof of the frame. Electrical wires were spliced to supply power to both the light-emitting diode lights and the camera. The charge-coupled device camera was connected to a liquid crystal display screen which was affixed directly across from the user. Subjects were prospectively randomized to perform the 5 tasks put forth by the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills on both the HM trainer and the FLS trainer (pegboard transfer, pattern cut, placement of ligating loop, extracorporeal knot suture, and intracorporeal knot suture). Simple paired t test was performed to compare times between the trainers.

SETTING

The construction of the trainer and the validation study were performed at the Central Michigan University College of Medicine Department of Simulation.

PARTICIPANTS

Subjects consisted of third- and fourth-year medical students (n = 30).

RESULTS

A laparoscopic trainer box was constructed and assembled in 2 hours. The HM trainer cost $309 representing a cost savings of $1371. Results of the validation study demonstrated no statistical difference in times to complete 3 out of the 5 tasks as well as no difference in total time to complete all 5 tasks (p value< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Valid laparoscopic simulators can be constructed at an economical cost.