Abstract
Abstract
Background
The learning curve in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is lengthened compared to open surgery. It has been reported that structured feedback and training in teams of two trainees improves MIS training and MIS performance. Annotation of surgical images and videos may prove beneficial for surgical training. This study investigated whether structured feedback and video debriefing, including annotation of critical view of safety (CVS), have beneficial learning effects in a predefined, multi-modal MIS training curriculum in teams of two trainees.
Methods
This randomized-controlled single-center study included medical students without MIS experience (n = 80). The participants first completed a standardized and structured multi-modal MIS training curriculum. They were then randomly divided into two groups (n = 40 each), and four laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) were performed on ex-vivo porcine livers each. Students in the intervention group received structured feedback after each LC, consisting of LC performance evaluations through tutor-trainee joint video debriefing and CVS video annotation. Performance was evaluated using global and LC-specific Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores.
Results
The participants in the intervention group had higher global and LC-specific OSATS as well as global and LC-specific GOALS scores than the participants in the control group (25.5 ± 7.3 vs. 23.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.003; 47.6 ± 12.9 vs. 36 ± 12.8, p < 0.001; 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. 16 ± 3.8, p < 0.001; 6.6 ± 2.3 vs. 5.9 ± 2.1, p = 0.005). The intervention group achieved CVS more often than the control group (1. LC: 20 vs. 10 participants, p = 0.037, 2. LC: 24 vs. 8, p = 0.001, 3. LC: 31 vs. 8, p < 0.001, 4. LC: 31 vs. 10, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Structured feedback and video debriefing with CVS annotation improves CVS achievement and ex-vivo porcine LC training performance based on OSATS and GOALS scores.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference67 articles.
1. Qu H, Liu Y, He QS (2014) Short- and long-term results of laparoscopic versus open anti-reflux surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 18(6):1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2492-6
2. Agha R, Muir G (2003) Does laparoscopic surgery spell the end of the open surgeon? J R Soc Med 96(11):544–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309601107
3. Pucher PH, Sodergren MH, Singh P, Darzi A, Parakseva P (2013) Have we learned from lessons of the past? A systematic review of training for single incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 27(5):1478–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2632-6
4. Hung AJ, Chen J, Shah A, Gill IS (2018) Telementoring and telesurgery for minimally invasive procedures. J Urol 199(2):355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.082
5. Liceaga A, Fernandes LF, Romeo A, Gagstatter F (2013) Romeo’s gladiator rule: knots, stitches and knot tying techniques: a tutorial based on a few simple rules; new concepts to teach suturing techniques in laparoscopic surgery. Endo-Press, Tuttlingen