Modular comparison of laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms in residency training

A randomized trial

Mostafa A. Borahay, Mary C. Haver, Benjamin Eastham, Pooja Patel, Gokhan Kilic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study Objective: To compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) skills acquired using laparoscopic and robotic simulation training platforms. Design: Randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: University residency training program. Subjects: PGY1 and PGY2 resident physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Interventions: All residents completed prestudy questionnaires (demographic data and previous experience in MIS) followed by simulation pretesting to assess baseline laparoscopic and robotic skills. Residents were then randomized to laparoscopic or robotic training cohorts in which they completed proctored training of 4 basic laparoscopic or 4 matching robotic modules (1hour per module, 4hours total). Thereafter, residents repeated the timed assessment of all skills. Finally, they completed poststudy questionnaires about the training experience. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of improvement in skill completion time. Secondary outcome measures were answers to poststudy questionnaires. Measurements and Main Results: Sixteen residents completed the study. The laparoscopic and robotic training groups did not differ substantially on demographic measures, previous experience in MIS, or baseline laparoscopic and robotic completion times. Median improvement for individual laparoscopic modules was, respectively, 37.76%, 46.43%, 53.29%, and 66.48% in the laparoscopic cohort vs 21.84%, 21.80%, 38.15%, and 32.98% in the robotic cohort. Median improvement for individual robotic modules was, respectively, 35.42%, 26.08%, 22.33%, and 47.48% in the laparoscopic cohort vs 52.70%, 62.02%, 67.64%, and 71.62% in the robotic cohort. Median improvement in combined laparoscopic, robotic, and overall skills was, respectively, 50.56%, 34.83%, and 45.52% in the laparoscopic group vs 36.18%, 64.12%, and 49.86% in the robotic group. Residents predicted greater comfort performing surgical procedures using the platform in which they trained; however, the robotic training cohort liked their training more. Conclusions: Laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms each demonstrated improved performance in the same and other platform. The robotic platform seems to have an edge over the laparoscopic platform. Larger studies are required in addition to studies to compare the effectiveness of both platforms in more advanced skills and to compare their effect on proficiency in the operating room.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)871-879
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Robotics
Internship and Residency
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Advisory Committees
Operating Rooms
Gynecology
Obstetrics

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic
  • Residency
  • Robotic
  • Simulation
  • Training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Modular comparison of laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms in residency training : A randomized trial. / Borahay, Mostafa A.; Haver, Mary C.; Eastham, Benjamin; Patel, Pooja; Kilic, Gokhan.

In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2013, p. 871-879.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cc3ab878cb734601815d3832f9e64e12,
title = "Modular comparison of laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms in residency training: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Study Objective: To compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) skills acquired using laparoscopic and robotic simulation training platforms. Design: Randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: University residency training program. Subjects: PGY1 and PGY2 resident physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Interventions: All residents completed prestudy questionnaires (demographic data and previous experience in MIS) followed by simulation pretesting to assess baseline laparoscopic and robotic skills. Residents were then randomized to laparoscopic or robotic training cohorts in which they completed proctored training of 4 basic laparoscopic or 4 matching robotic modules (1hour per module, 4hours total). Thereafter, residents repeated the timed assessment of all skills. Finally, they completed poststudy questionnaires about the training experience. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of improvement in skill completion time. Secondary outcome measures were answers to poststudy questionnaires. Measurements and Main Results: Sixteen residents completed the study. The laparoscopic and robotic training groups did not differ substantially on demographic measures, previous experience in MIS, or baseline laparoscopic and robotic completion times. Median improvement for individual laparoscopic modules was, respectively, 37.76{\%}, 46.43{\%}, 53.29{\%}, and 66.48{\%} in the laparoscopic cohort vs 21.84{\%}, 21.80{\%}, 38.15{\%}, and 32.98{\%} in the robotic cohort. Median improvement for individual robotic modules was, respectively, 35.42{\%}, 26.08{\%}, 22.33{\%}, and 47.48{\%} in the laparoscopic cohort vs 52.70{\%}, 62.02{\%}, 67.64{\%}, and 71.62{\%} in the robotic cohort. Median improvement in combined laparoscopic, robotic, and overall skills was, respectively, 50.56{\%}, 34.83{\%}, and 45.52{\%} in the laparoscopic group vs 36.18{\%}, 64.12{\%}, and 49.86{\%} in the robotic group. Residents predicted greater comfort performing surgical procedures using the platform in which they trained; however, the robotic training cohort liked their training more. Conclusions: Laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms each demonstrated improved performance in the same and other platform. The robotic platform seems to have an edge over the laparoscopic platform. Larger studies are required in addition to studies to compare the effectiveness of both platforms in more advanced skills and to compare their effect on proficiency in the operating room.",
keywords = "Laparoscopic, Residency, Robotic, Simulation, Training",
author = "Borahay, {Mostafa A.} and Haver, {Mary C.} and Benjamin Eastham and Pooja Patel and Gokhan Kilic",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.jmig.2013.06.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "871--879",
journal = "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology",
issn = "1553-4650",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modular comparison of laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms in residency training

T2 - A randomized trial

AU - Borahay, Mostafa A.

AU - Haver, Mary C.

AU - Eastham, Benjamin

AU - Patel, Pooja

AU - Kilic, Gokhan

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Study Objective: To compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) skills acquired using laparoscopic and robotic simulation training platforms. Design: Randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: University residency training program. Subjects: PGY1 and PGY2 resident physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Interventions: All residents completed prestudy questionnaires (demographic data and previous experience in MIS) followed by simulation pretesting to assess baseline laparoscopic and robotic skills. Residents were then randomized to laparoscopic or robotic training cohorts in which they completed proctored training of 4 basic laparoscopic or 4 matching robotic modules (1hour per module, 4hours total). Thereafter, residents repeated the timed assessment of all skills. Finally, they completed poststudy questionnaires about the training experience. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of improvement in skill completion time. Secondary outcome measures were answers to poststudy questionnaires. Measurements and Main Results: Sixteen residents completed the study. The laparoscopic and robotic training groups did not differ substantially on demographic measures, previous experience in MIS, or baseline laparoscopic and robotic completion times. Median improvement for individual laparoscopic modules was, respectively, 37.76%, 46.43%, 53.29%, and 66.48% in the laparoscopic cohort vs 21.84%, 21.80%, 38.15%, and 32.98% in the robotic cohort. Median improvement for individual robotic modules was, respectively, 35.42%, 26.08%, 22.33%, and 47.48% in the laparoscopic cohort vs 52.70%, 62.02%, 67.64%, and 71.62% in the robotic cohort. Median improvement in combined laparoscopic, robotic, and overall skills was, respectively, 50.56%, 34.83%, and 45.52% in the laparoscopic group vs 36.18%, 64.12%, and 49.86% in the robotic group. Residents predicted greater comfort performing surgical procedures using the platform in which they trained; however, the robotic training cohort liked their training more. Conclusions: Laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms each demonstrated improved performance in the same and other platform. The robotic platform seems to have an edge over the laparoscopic platform. Larger studies are required in addition to studies to compare the effectiveness of both platforms in more advanced skills and to compare their effect on proficiency in the operating room.

AB - Study Objective: To compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) skills acquired using laparoscopic and robotic simulation training platforms. Design: Randomized trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: University residency training program. Subjects: PGY1 and PGY2 resident physicians in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Interventions: All residents completed prestudy questionnaires (demographic data and previous experience in MIS) followed by simulation pretesting to assess baseline laparoscopic and robotic skills. Residents were then randomized to laparoscopic or robotic training cohorts in which they completed proctored training of 4 basic laparoscopic or 4 matching robotic modules (1hour per module, 4hours total). Thereafter, residents repeated the timed assessment of all skills. Finally, they completed poststudy questionnaires about the training experience. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of improvement in skill completion time. Secondary outcome measures were answers to poststudy questionnaires. Measurements and Main Results: Sixteen residents completed the study. The laparoscopic and robotic training groups did not differ substantially on demographic measures, previous experience in MIS, or baseline laparoscopic and robotic completion times. Median improvement for individual laparoscopic modules was, respectively, 37.76%, 46.43%, 53.29%, and 66.48% in the laparoscopic cohort vs 21.84%, 21.80%, 38.15%, and 32.98% in the robotic cohort. Median improvement for individual robotic modules was, respectively, 35.42%, 26.08%, 22.33%, and 47.48% in the laparoscopic cohort vs 52.70%, 62.02%, 67.64%, and 71.62% in the robotic cohort. Median improvement in combined laparoscopic, robotic, and overall skills was, respectively, 50.56%, 34.83%, and 45.52% in the laparoscopic group vs 36.18%, 64.12%, and 49.86% in the robotic group. Residents predicted greater comfort performing surgical procedures using the platform in which they trained; however, the robotic training cohort liked their training more. Conclusions: Laparoscopic and robotic simulation platforms each demonstrated improved performance in the same and other platform. The robotic platform seems to have an edge over the laparoscopic platform. Larger studies are required in addition to studies to compare the effectiveness of both platforms in more advanced skills and to compare their effect on proficiency in the operating room.

KW - Laparoscopic

KW - Residency

KW - Robotic

KW - Simulation

KW - Training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886954026&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886954026&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.06.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.06.005

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 871

EP - 879

JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

SN - 1553-4650

IS - 6

ER -