A laparoscopic simulator - maybe it is worth making it yourself

STELA (Smart TV and smartphone-basEd Laparoscopy TrAiner): a no-cost home-based trainer for beginners

BACKGROUND

Proficiency in laparoscopy is gradually achieved. After initial simulation, it is safe to move to real patients. Simulation improves the basic attributes of laparoscopy, and its non-availability hampers training. Virtual reality and commercial simulators are exorbitantly expensive. Cheaper non-commercial latest, mobile phone-based simulators appear ergonomically unsuitable. A need for a no-cost, home-based laparoscopic endotrainer was felt by authors.

METHODS

The authors proposed the concept of smart TV and smart phone-based laparoscopy trainer (STELA), an almost zero cost, lightweight indigenous, cable-less box-type endotrainer, with a smart phone housed on the model, projecting to smart TV via Wi-fi direct. The simulation timings on STELA were compared with Universal Beetel endotrainer by a group of surgeons and residents using identical tasks like object transfer (OT) and knot making (KM).

RESULTS

Data were analysed using SPSS, version 23.There was no significant difference in the mean timings of the residents (p > 0.05) on two endotrainers, for both tasks, and of surgeons for OT. Surgeons took significantly longer time (p < 0.05) in KM on STELA. Highest correlation (r = +.848) (<.05) was seen for KM on both devices by residents.

CONCLUSION

STELA is a viable, technologically advanced, no cost alternative to the non-commercial cumbersome simulators especially for beginners.

Development and Validation of a Homemade, Low-Cost Laparoscopic Simulator for Resident Surgeons (LABOT)

Several studies have demonstrated that training with a laparoscopic simulator improves laparoscopic technical skills. We describe how to build a homemade, low-cost laparoscopic training simulator (LABOT) and its validation as a training instrument. First, sixty surgeons filled out a survey characterized by 12 closed-answer questions about realism, ergonomics, and usefulness for surgical training (global scores ranged from 1—very insufficient to 5—very good). The results of the questionnaires showed a mean (±SD) rating score of 4.18 ± 0.65 for all users. Then, 15 students (group S) and 15 residents (group R) completed 3 different tasks (T1, T2, T3), which were repeated twice to evaluate the execution time and the number of users’ procedural errors. For T1, the R group had a lower mean execution time and a lower rate of procedural errors than the S group; for T2, the R and S groups had a similar mean execution time, but the R group had a lower rate of errors; and for T3, the R and S groups had a similar mean execution time and rate of errors. On a second attempt, all the participants tended to improve their results in doing these surgical tasks; nevertheless, after subgroup analysis of the T1 results, the S group had a better improvement of both parameters. Our laparoscopic simulator is simple to build, low-cost, easy to use, and seems to be a suitable resource for improving laparoscopic skills. In the future, further studies should evaluate the potential of this laparoscopic box on long-term surgical training with more complex tasks and simulation attempts.

Training on an inexpensive tablet-based device is equally effective as on a standard laparoscopic box trainer: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to assess whether an inexpensive tablet-based box trainer (TBT) is at least equally effective compared with a standard box trainer (SBT) to learn basic laparoscopic skills (BLS). BLS training outside the operating room has been shown to be beneficial for surgical residency. However, simulation trainers are expensive and are not consistently available in all training centers. Therefore, TBT and other homemade box trainers were developed.

METHODS

Medical students were randomized to either a TBT or an SBT and trained 4 fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) tasks for 1 hour twice a week for 4 weeks. A baseline test before the training period and a posttraining test were performed. All students then completed a questionnaire to assess their assigned box trainer. The primary outcome measure was the improvement in total test scores. Improvement in the scores for the 4 individual FLS tasks was chosen as a secondary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Thirty-two medical students were recruited. Baseline test scores did not differ significantly between the groups. BLS improved significantly in both groups for the total score and for all 4 tasks separately. Participants in the TBT group showed a greater improvement of total scores than those in the SBT group, although this did not reach statistical significance; noninferiority of the TBT compared with the SBT concerning the improvement of total scores could be demonstrated. Regarding the individual FLS tasks, noninferiority of the TBT could be shown for the pattern cutting and the suturing with intracorporeal knot-tying task. The acceptance of the TBT by the trainees was very good.

CONCLUSION

Learning BLS on a homemade TBT is at least equally effective as on an SBT, with the advantage of being very cost saving. Therefore, this readily available box trainer may be used as an effective, flexible training device outside the operating room to improve accessibility to simulation training.

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.

Video display during laparoscopy - where should it be placed?

Introduction

During laparoscopy, the monitor is usually placed near the operating table, at eye level, which significantly affects hand-eye coordination. First, it is impossible for the surgeon to simultaneously observe the operative field and hand movement. Second, the axis of view of the endoscope rarely matches the natural axis of the surgeon's sight: it resembles a direct view into the operative field. Finally, as the arms of the tools act as levers with a fulcrum at the site of the skin incision, the action of the tool handles is a mirror image of the movement of the tool tips seen on the monitor. Studies have shown that a neutral position with the head flexed at 15–45° is the most ergonomically suitable.

Aim

To evaluate whether the level of monitor placement exerts an influence on laparoscopic performance.

Material and methods

A group of 52 students of medicine were asked to pass a thread through 9 holes of different sizes, placed at different levels and angles, using a self-made laparoscopic simulator. Each student performed the task four times in two monitor positions: at eye level, and placed on a simulator. The order of monitor placement was randomized.

Results

The task was performed more quickly when the monitor was placed on the simulator and the sight was forced downwards. Lower placement was also found to be more beneficial for students with experience in laparoscopy.

Conclusions

New technologies which place the display on the patient, thus improving the ergonomics of the operation, should be developed.