Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: Augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. Design: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models. Setting: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Participants: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009). Conclusions: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)200-204
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Surgical Education
Volume67
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Colectomy
Sigmoid Colon
Cadaver
Hand
event
trainee
Intestinal Perforation
Learning Curve
Ureter
Laparoscopy
Prospective Studies
surgery
experience
learning
Surgeons

Keywords

  • colorectal surgery
  • laparoscopy
  • training model

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Education

Cite this

Leblanc, F., Senagore, A. J., Ellis, C. N., Champagne, B. J., Augestad, K. M., Neary, P. C., & Delaney, C. P. (2010). Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: Augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models. Journal of Surgical Education, 67(4), 200-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.06.004

Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition : Augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models. / Leblanc, Fabien; Senagore, Anthony J.; Ellis, Clyde N.; Champagne, Bradley J.; Augestad, Knut M.; Neary, Paul C.; Delaney, Conor P.

In: Journal of Surgical Education, Vol. 67, No. 4, 07.2010, p. 200-204.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Leblanc, Fabien ; Senagore, Anthony J. ; Ellis, Clyde N. ; Champagne, Bradley J. ; Augestad, Knut M. ; Neary, Paul C. ; Delaney, Conor P. / Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition : Augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models. In: Journal of Surgical Education. 2010 ; Vol. 67, No. 4. pp. 200-204.
@article{e2582822597a4a47b6e32cc047cf14f5,
title = "Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition: Augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models",
abstract = "Objective: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. Design: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models. Setting: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Participants: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009). Conclusions: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve.",
keywords = "colorectal surgery, laparoscopy, training model",
author = "Fabien Leblanc and Senagore, {Anthony J.} and Ellis, {Clyde N.} and Champagne, {Bradley J.} and Augestad, {Knut M.} and Neary, {Paul C.} and Delaney, {Conor P.}",
year = "2010",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.06.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "200--204",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Education",
issn = "1931-7204",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy skills acquisition

T2 - Augmented reality simulator versus human cadaver training models

AU - Leblanc, Fabien

AU - Senagore, Anthony J.

AU - Ellis, Clyde N.

AU - Champagne, Bradley J.

AU - Augestad, Knut M.

AU - Neary, Paul C.

AU - Delaney, Conor P.

PY - 2010/7

Y1 - 2010/7

N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. Design: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models. Setting: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Participants: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009). Conclusions: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve.

AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to compare a simulator with the human cadaver model for hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal skills acquisition training. Design: An observational prospective comparative study was conducted to compare the laparoscopic surgery training models. Setting: The study took place during the laparoscopic colectomy training course performed at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Participants: Thirty four practicing surgeons performed hand-assisted laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy on human cadavers (n = 7) and on an augmented reality simulator (n = 27). Prior laparoscopic colorectal experience was assessed. Trainers and trainees completed independently objective structured assessment forms. Training models were compared by trainees' technical skills scores, events scores, and satisfaction. Results: Prior laparoscopic experience was similar in both surgeon groups. Generic and specific skills scores were similar on both training models. Generic events scores were significantly better on the cadaver model. The 2 most frequent generic events occurring on the simulator were poor hand-eye coordination and inefficient use of retraction. Specific events were scored better on the simulator and reached the significance limit (p = 0.051) for trainers. The specific events occurring on the cadaver were intestinal perforation and left ureter identification difficulties. Overall satisfaction was better for the cadaver than for the simulator model (p = 0.009). Conclusions: With regard to skills scores, the augmented reality simulator had adequate qualities for the hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy training. Nevertheless, events scores highlighted weaknesses of the anatomical replication on the simulator. Although improvements likely will be required to incorporate the simulator more routinely into the colorectal training, it may be useful in its current form for more junior trainees or those early on their learning curve.

KW - colorectal surgery

KW - laparoscopy

KW - training model

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956305537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956305537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2010.06.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 20816353

AN - SCOPUS:77956305537

VL - 67

SP - 200

EP - 204

JO - Journal of Surgical Education

JF - Journal of Surgical Education

SN - 1931-7204

IS - 4

ER -