A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training

Fabien Leblanc, Bradley J. Champagne, Knut M. Augestad, Paul C. Neary, Anthony J. Senagore, Clyde N. Ellis, Conor P. Delaney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the human cadaver model with an augmented reality simulator for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition. Study Design: Thirty-five sigmoid colectomies were performed on a cadaver (n = 7) or an augmented reality simulator (n = 28) during a laparoscopic training course. Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Objective structured technical skills assessment forms were completed by trainers and trainees independently. Groups were compared according to technical skills and events scores and satisfaction with training model. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both groups. For trainers and trainees, technical skills scores were considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. For trainers, generic events score was also considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. The main generic event occurring on both models was errors in the use of retraction. The main specific event occurring on both models was bowel perforation. Global satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p <0.001). Conclusions: The human cadaver model was more difficult but better appreciated than the simulator for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy training. Simulator training followed by cadaver training can appropriately integrate simulators into the learning curve and maintain the benefits of both training methodologies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)250-255
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume211
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cadaver
Colectomy
Sigmoid Colon
Learning Curve

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. / Leblanc, Fabien; Champagne, Bradley J.; Augestad, Knut M.; Neary, Paul C.; Senagore, Anthony J.; Ellis, Clyde N.; Delaney, Conor P.

In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 211, No. 2, 08.2010, p. 250-255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Leblanc, Fabien ; Champagne, Bradley J. ; Augestad, Knut M. ; Neary, Paul C. ; Senagore, Anthony J. ; Ellis, Clyde N. ; Delaney, Conor P. / A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2010 ; Vol. 211, No. 2. pp. 250-255.
@article{c2bb067b99a74437af49a0bac681b089,
title = "A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training",
abstract = "Background: The aim of this study was to compare the human cadaver model with an augmented reality simulator for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition. Study Design: Thirty-five sigmoid colectomies were performed on a cadaver (n = 7) or an augmented reality simulator (n = 28) during a laparoscopic training course. Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Objective structured technical skills assessment forms were completed by trainers and trainees independently. Groups were compared according to technical skills and events scores and satisfaction with training model. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both groups. For trainers and trainees, technical skills scores were considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. For trainers, generic events score was also considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. The main generic event occurring on both models was errors in the use of retraction. The main specific event occurring on both models was bowel perforation. Global satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p <0.001). Conclusions: The human cadaver model was more difficult but better appreciated than the simulator for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy training. Simulator training followed by cadaver training can appropriately integrate simulators into the learning curve and maintain the benefits of both training methodologies.",
author = "Fabien Leblanc and Champagne, {Bradley J.} and Augestad, {Knut M.} and Neary, {Paul C.} and Senagore, {Anthony J.} and Ellis, {Clyde N.} and Delaney, {Conor P.}",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "211",
pages = "250--255",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of human cadaver and augmented reality simulator models for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training

AU - Leblanc, Fabien

AU - Champagne, Bradley J.

AU - Augestad, Knut M.

AU - Neary, Paul C.

AU - Senagore, Anthony J.

AU - Ellis, Clyde N.

AU - Delaney, Conor P.

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

N2 - Background: The aim of this study was to compare the human cadaver model with an augmented reality simulator for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition. Study Design: Thirty-five sigmoid colectomies were performed on a cadaver (n = 7) or an augmented reality simulator (n = 28) during a laparoscopic training course. Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Objective structured technical skills assessment forms were completed by trainers and trainees independently. Groups were compared according to technical skills and events scores and satisfaction with training model. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both groups. For trainers and trainees, technical skills scores were considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. For trainers, generic events score was also considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. The main generic event occurring on both models was errors in the use of retraction. The main specific event occurring on both models was bowel perforation. Global satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p <0.001). Conclusions: The human cadaver model was more difficult but better appreciated than the simulator for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy training. Simulator training followed by cadaver training can appropriately integrate simulators into the learning curve and maintain the benefits of both training methodologies.

AB - Background: The aim of this study was to compare the human cadaver model with an augmented reality simulator for straight laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition. Study Design: Thirty-five sigmoid colectomies were performed on a cadaver (n = 7) or an augmented reality simulator (n = 28) during a laparoscopic training course. Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Objective structured technical skills assessment forms were completed by trainers and trainees independently. Groups were compared according to technical skills and events scores and satisfaction with training model. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both groups. For trainers and trainees, technical skills scores were considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. For trainers, generic events score was also considerably better on the simulator than on the cadaver. The main generic event occurring on both models was errors in the use of retraction. The main specific event occurring on both models was bowel perforation. Global satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p <0.001). Conclusions: The human cadaver model was more difficult but better appreciated than the simulator for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy training. Simulator training followed by cadaver training can appropriately integrate simulators into the learning curve and maintain the benefits of both training methodologies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955528443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955528443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.002

M3 - Article

VL - 211

SP - 250

EP - 255

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 2

ER -